Fundy juries
Dave Jones
witholding medication from a child on religious grounds, causing
his death. It seems to be an epidemic. This time the charge is manslaughter,
not simple child endangerment. I think the newsperson said "Christian
Science", but I'm not sure.
Anyway, they are trying to impanel the jury, and one of the attorneys
asks about the prospective juror's religious beliefs and the other
says, "Whoa! Wait a minute!" and that's just what they are doing
while the judge thinks it over.
The news didn't say, but I am assuming it was the prosecutor who
was asking because he was afraid of jury-nullification of the law.
You know, the juror says, well yeah, it's against the law to withhold
vital medical attention from a child, but according to my religion,
it should not be, so, "Not guilty!"
It looks clear-cut to me. The prosecutor should be allowed to question
the jurors and dismiss those who, because of religion or any other
reason would refuse to uphold the law. "Freedom of religion" does not
mean freedom to rewrite the law of the land, any more than it means
freedom to abuse your children. We will see what happens.
Erann Gat
> It looks clear-cut to me. The prosecutor should be allowed to question
> the jurors and dismiss those who, because of religion or any other
> reason would refuse to uphold the law. "Freedom of religion" does not
> mean freedom to rewrite the law of the land, any more than it means
> freedom to abuse your children.
Actually, that is exactly what it means. It used to be the law of the land
that students had to pray in the public schools. This law was found to be
in conflict with the freedom of religion guaranteed in the first amendment
and that law is no longer upheld.
Now, I will grant you that the case of Christian Scientists and others
letting their children die of treatable diseases is very different from
forced prayer in the schools. But to call it "the freedom to abuse your
children" is not being quite fair. These people did not withold medical
treatment from their children out of a desire to see them suffer and die.
They did it because they loved their children and believed in their heart
of hearts that to put their fate in the hands of God was the best thing
they could do for them.
Now, you may be horrified at this attitude. There are those who are
equally horrified by people who favor the ban on prayer in the schools.
There are people far less radical than Christian Scientists who believe
that prayer is at least as important for one's overall well being as
medical care. There are people who are as shocked that children are
being denied spiritual care as you are that children are being denied
medical care. Should your prejudices carry more weight than theirs?
What people have to face up to is that freedom has a price. The price
is that sometimes you have to let people do things that shock and
horrify you. Sometimes you even have to let people die in order to
preserve freedom. (Though I have no data, I stringly suspect that the
freedom to hang glide has claimed more lives than the Christian Scientists.)
Perhaps when enough children have died, people will start to think twice
about becoming (or remaining) Christian Scientists.
Erann Gat
g...@ai.jpl.nasa.gov
These opinions are my own, but everyone is welcome to as many as they want.
David Hatcher
> Sometimes you even have to let people die in order to
>preserve freedom.
Sad, but true!
> (Though I have no data, I stringly suspect that the
>freedom to hang glide has claimed more lives than the Christian Scientists.)
I know that automobile accidents have.
David Hatcher
Jeffrey Schavland
>
>Medical care is a human right.
>
Since when is medical care a human right? I always thought that people
have (in theory) the "right" to do anything they want as long as it doesn't
infringe upon the "rights" of others. Saying that medical care is a human
right is just as wrong as saying that employment or silly putty is a
human right.
--
Jeffrey A. Schavland | schv...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois | schv...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
at Urbana-Champaign | j-sch...@uiuc.edu
"If Communism goes, I've still got the U.S. House of Representatives."
-Robert Novak
Brad Pierce
>What people have to face up to is that freedom has a price. The price
>is that sometimes you have to let people do things that shock and
>horrify you. Sometimes you even have to let people die in order to
>preserve freedom.
This price of freedom should not be paid by children. There are people
that beat their children because they believe that "spare the rod
spoil the child". Should society allow this behavior in the name of
the parents' freedom?
Medical care is a human right.
Whoever deprives another of a human right, whether the denier is a
government or parent, is not exercising freedom, but abusing power.
It is gross injustice to treat another human as property, even if
you are that person's parent.
-- Brad
Ronald BODKIN
transfusion]
>Now, you may be horrified at this attitude...
>What people have to face up to is that freedom has a price. The price
>is that sometimes you have to let people do things that shock and
>horrify you. Sometimes you even have to let people die in order to
>preserve freedom. (Though I have no data, I stringly suspect that the
>freedom to hang glide has claimed more lives than the Christian Scientists.)
advocating forcing an adult C.S. to receive a blood transfusion -- this is
their unalienable right. BUT, the child is a separate human being, and
not a property of their guardian(s) (i.e. parent(s)), and just as a parent
who INSISTED their child hang glide would indeed be abusing the child,
the same holds here. It is also not acceptable for a parent to insist
on their child taking a 40 day hunger strike, although it is perfectly
legitimate for the parent to do so themself. When a parent is allowed
to enforce irrational and extremely damaging prejudices on their child,
this departs from the area of PERSONAL liberty.
Ron
Jeff Schavland
>In article <1990Apr21....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> schv...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Schavland) writes:
>|In article <34...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pie...@cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>|>
>|>Medical care is a human right.
>|>
>|Since when is medical care a human right? I always thought that people
>|have (in theory) the "right" to do anything they want as long as it doesn't
>|infringe upon the "rights" of others. Saying that medical care is a human
>|right is just as wrong as saying that employment or silly putty is a
>|human right.
>
> for sure that silly putty is a human right.
>
> It puzzles me why anyone would attack the concept
> of "Medical care is a human right". Somehow the
> idea of medical care infringing on the rights of
> others is laughable.
Medical care can very easily infringe on the rights of others. If you
tax me to pay for your "right" of medical care, then it becomes my business.
If you force me as a, let's say parent who is a Christian Scientist, to
provide medical care to my children, you have certianly "infringed" on
my rights.
--
Jeffrey A. Schavland
schv...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu | Illini Space Development Society
schv...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu | NSS Chapter at the University of Illinois
j-sch...@uiuc.edu | 104 Transportation Building
"Mr. Hiss represents the concealed enemy against which we are all fighting, and
I am fighting. I have testified against him with remorse and pity, but in a
moment of history in which this Nation now stands, so help me God, I could not
do otherwise."
-Whittaker Chambers, testifying before HUAC, 25 August 1948
Ronald BODKIN
> It puzzles me why anyone would attack the concept
> of "Medical care is a human right". Somehow the
> idea of medical care infringing on the rights of
> others is laughable.
care -- but the right to medical care as in right to force others to
pay/give this care is a different question. THIS would infringe on
those paying/being forced to provide said care.
Ron
Bruce Becker
|>
|>Medical care is a human right.
|>
|Since when is medical care a human right? I always thought that people
|have (in theory) the "right" to do anything they want as long as it doesn't
|infringe upon the "rights" of others. Saying that medical care is a human
|right is just as wrong as saying that employment or silly putty is a
|human right.
I'm not so sure about employment, but I know
for sure that silly putty is a human right.
It puzzles me why anyone would attack the concept
of "Medical care is a human right". Somehow the
idea of medical care infringing on the rights of
others is laughable.
--
,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario
a /i/ Internet: b...@becker.UUCP, br...@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
`\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb
_< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
Barry Shein
From: schv...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeff Schavland )
>Medical care can very easily infringe on the rights of others. If you
>tax me to pay for your "right" of medical care, then it becomes my business.
But presumably you enjoy the same right, so you're taxing each other.
Change the topic, if you tax me to pay for your "right" of free
speech, then it becomes my business. Just as only one of us might
become sick, only one of us might be demanding protection of our free
speech.
Is the complaint about medical care, or taxes in general? Your
statement seems to be far too broad a sweep to figure this out.
>If you force me as a, let's say parent who is a Christian Scientist, to
>provide medical care to my children, you have certianly "infringed" on
>my rights.
That's been argued in the courts over a thousand issues, if you choose
to not partake, voluntarily (due to religious or personal preference),
of something which is freely available to you, that's your business.
But it doesn't, a priori, excuse you from all taxes relating to that.
It was your choice not to walk in the park or whatever, no matter how
good or solid the reason (you're deathly allergic to grass, etc.)
Or is all this only true in some mythical world which exists only in
your head?
--
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | {xylogics,uunet}!world!bzs | b...@world.std.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
James Seidman
>From: schv...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeff Schavland )
>>Medical care can very easily infringe on the rights of others. If you
>>tax me to pay for your "right" of medical care, then it becomes my business.
>
>But presumably you enjoy the same right, so you're taxing each other.
Just out of curiosity, are you really *that* naive? Do you really think
that in a system of socialized medicine, it isn't the rich subsidizing the
poor? If so I recommend you take a class in economics.
--
Jim Seidman, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711. (714) 621-8000 x2026
"All of us who attempt to heal the wounds of others will ourselves be wounded;
it is, after all, inherent in the relationship."
- From "Healing the Wounds" by David Hilfiker, M.D.
Bradley L. Richards
>letting their children die of treatable diseases is very different from
>forced prayer in the schools.
>
>equally horrified by people who favor the ban on prayer in the schools.
>There are people far less radical than Christian Scientists who believe
>that prayer is at least as important for one's overall well being as
>medical care. There are people who are as shocked that children are
>being denied spiritual care as you are that children are being denied
>medical care. Should your prejudices carry more weight than theirs?
>
You're right--these are *very* different issues. The ban on prayer in
public schools is a ban on *organized* prayer. Those people who believe
prayer is important are free to pray on their own. And if some children
of non-Christians grow up and convert to Christianity, that change of belief
is just fine. But denying medical care to a child is a little more
dramatic--the child never gets that second chance.
It's a tough question: how much do we allow the government into our family
lives. I know someone who spanked her child in public and some well-meaning
nitwit reported her to the police for child abuse. The cops came and put
the whole family through a nightmare while they did a home study. Where
do we draw the line?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bradley L. Richards bra...@cs.utexas.edu
Department of Computer Science uucp: cs.utexas.edu!bradley :-)
Univ of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 AFIT/CISP, WPAFB, OH 45433
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunther Wil Anderson
>I'm not a lawyer or anything, but IMHO medical care and employment are
>covered under "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.
>
Pursuit of Happiness is a neat concept, but is really only useful when
you're trying to rally the locals. To use it as a legal principle is
to invite all manner of difficulties. If abusing women gratifies me
tremendously, am I guaranteed the same protection under the law? If
destruction of my neighbors properts eases my tension, am I not
culpable? Employment and medical care are not rights, per se. They
are considered to be basic human necessities, but to declare them as
rights places the government in the position of providing it.
Unemployment insurance is such a right. (Before I am called a
nincompoop, other rights such as free speech are guaranteed simply not
to be infringed, since they cannot be provided).
(Also, the Declaration of Independence was, as far as our legal system
is considered, a non-binding resolution. The niceties of its
composition, if they exist at all in out government now, are there by
coincidence -- not by plan.)
>I think your definition of "right" is a little off. We have the right to
>free speech. We have the right to keep and bear arms. It is possible to
>be entitled to certain things that we call rights. And as far as I'm
>concerned, medical care falls under the heading, "You have the right
>not to be killed." (see the Clash, not the Constitution)
>
(But do I have the right to die?)
Back to the original question (if I've followed the thread properly),
yes, you do have the right to live, in general, but the trick is that
you have the right to live (again, in general) as you please. (Yes,
this right has been continuously and deeply infringed, but that's not
the topic here.) If I should happen to cut my leg off with a
chainsaw, and I decide it looks neat, I am at liberty not to seek
medical care. In order for that care to be forcedon me, I must be
declared incompetent first. Even though medical care is available,
and necessary to my future well being, I must seek it out.
The question here is whether the government is required to
preserve the life of someone until they are old enough to make the
determination to seek or not themselves. As always, this discussion
boils down to personal morality and religion. There is no universal
truth here, and all the government can do is take a stand, and hope it
pans out. In this case, they've decided that you must reach your
majority before you can decide to not seek care. Your parents are not
at liberty to make that determination for you.
>| Bryan Whitehead | The currents rage so deep inside us |
>| br...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu | This is the age of Video Violence |
>| br...@next.cc.ukans.edu | No age of reason landing upon us |
>| I never check mail on my | This is the age of Video Violence |
>| other accounts! | - Lou Reed |
> The television screen is the retina of the mind's eye - Prof. Brian O'Blivion
Gunther W. Anderson
gun...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu
... crabcake...
... jhuvms...
... jhuvm...
br...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
> In article <34...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pie...@cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>>
>>Medical care is a human right.
>>
> Since when is medical care a human right? I always thought that people
> have (in theory) the "right" to do anything they want as long as it doesn't
> infringe upon the "rights" of others. Saying that medical care is a human
> right is just as wrong as saying that employment or silly putty is a
> human right.
Weelllllll....
I'm not a lawyer or anything, but IMHO medical care and employment are
covered under "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.
Silly Putty may be another matter, however.
I think your definition of "right" is a little off. We have the right to
free speech. We have the right to keep and bear arms. It is possible to
be entitled to certain things that we call rights. And as far as I'm
concerned, medical care falls under the heading, "You have the right
not to be killed." (see the Clash, not the Constitution)
- Bryan
br...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
> In article <82...@becker.UUCP> b...@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes:
> If you force me as a, let's say parent who is a Christian Scientist, to
> provide medical care to my children, you have certianly "infringed" on
> my rights.
You're confusing "right" and "obligation."
You have the right to own a gun. However, except for one or two isolated
rural communitites, nowhere in the U.S. actually requires you to possess
a firearm (in fact, most places would just as soon you didn't). Medical
care is the same way.
I guess the real fundamental issue here is that it's stupid for human
beings to suffer and die merely because they can't afford the medical
attention available to their wealthy counterparts. If you're arguing that
this isn't guaranteed by the Constitution, I hate to agree with you but
I do. Nonetheless, that's not necessarily the way it should be.
David Heisterberg
> I'm not a lawyer or anything, but IMHO medical care and employment are
> covered under "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.
Note that it's pursuit, not attainment. Also, the DofI doesn't have any
legal significance, except maybe to clarify original intent.
And as far as I'm
> concerned, medical care falls under the heading, "You have the right
> not to be killed."
Isn't that stretching it? I would like to agree with you, I mean, it
sounds nice and all, but just because people "ought" to have something
doesn't mean we have the capability of providing it. If a meteor falls
on your head and kills you, there's nothing anyone can do about it. And
if it falls on your head and turns you into a vegetable, requiring
incredibly expensive treatment just to keep you alive, well, to be
honest, I'd rather keep my money than have the government force me to
give it up for your sake. In fact, unless I'm the one who bounced the
rock off your noggin, I don't think anyone has the right to make me
fork over my money for your well being. However, I might just do it
anyway. Remember, you can't fool economics: the government's money is
MY money, and YOUR money, and HIS money, and HER money, etc.
--
David J. Heisterberg d...@osc.edu And you all know
The Ohio Supercomputer Center d...@ohstpy.bitnet security Is mortals'
Columbus, Ohio ohstpy::djh chiefest enemy.
James Seidman
>I'm not a lawyer or anything, but IMHO medical care and employment are
>covered under "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.
Well, IMHO this line of thinking is a very dangerous one. Does that mean
that unemployment (and accompanying welfare) is covered under the "pursuit
of happiness" clause? How about those people who want to use XTC under that
clause? Maybe medical care should be covered under the "life" part of it,
but I think that the "pursuit of happiness" is so vague as to serve no
function other than giving something for lawyers to invoke when they're
desparate.
--
Jim Seidman, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711. (714) 621-8000 x2026
The Doctor: It was a terrible babble of inhuman voices.
Prof. Chronotis: Oh, that was just the undergraduates!
- Doctor Who, "Shada"
Doug Linder
> However, Doug Linder seems to have returned, and he suggested this
> experiment: ^ I wasn't aware that I had left
>> OK, say we take 100 kids and put them in a standard hospital where they
>>recieve whatever medical care trained doctors feel necessary. then we
>>take 100 other kids as a control group (poor things) and put them in an
>>ideantical hospital in every way except instead of doctors, priests pray
>>over them for the same amount of time. [ And legislate whichever works
>> best. - kwh ]
>
> Firstly, if I remember my statistics correctly, the effectiveness rate for
> `modern medicine' is about 80%, and the effectiveness rate for `doing
> nothing at all' is about 60%. I don't know of any data on prayers. (If
> these statistics are old or mangled by senility, corrections are welcome.)
You don't have any data on prayers because "doing nothing" == "praying"
> But more importantly, I find Doug's article horrifying.
> What scares me about him is that, though he clearly believes the control
> group is going to have more children die, Doug is willing to sacrifice them
> to prove his point -- apparently, those children who die are insignificant
> when it comes to getting his own opinions legislated.
[ more stuff about what a child-killing ogre I am ]
Oh, please, Darren, I thought even you were smarter than this. I almost
didn't even reply to your message because I find it very hard to belive that
anyone would take your babble about me callously killing children seriously.
However, there *are* some thiests about, so I'd better make myself very clear.
I'll try to use small words. Perhaps it is my fault after all for not being
clear in the first place, I thought everyone would understand - that's what I
get for overestimating the brains of fundies. Here we go:
I wasn't *serious*, Darren. It was a *hypothetical* situation, intended to
desmonstrate through analogy what I thought about the effectiveness of prayer
as a substitute for medical care - i.e; not much. If anyone ever tried to
preform this experiment, I'd be first in line trying to stop them. As far as
I'm concerned, religious freedom does not extend to killing children. I never
thought I'd find myself using an argument from the pro-lifers, but did anyone
ever ask the children if they wanted to live? Maybe, but then again the kids
are probably so programmed that they'd opt for prayer too.
Please don't think that this kind of thinly veiled ad hominem rhetoric will
affect me in any way. I highly doubt that anyone except you honestly thought
that I was in favor of sacrificing children.
> (The rest of Doug's article was the standard Christianity bashing that he
> has posted nonstop since he first showed up on the net, and since he said
> nothing new there's no point in replying to it.)
Oh, don't give me this patronizing BS. Do you really think the content of
*your* posts has changed? Please, be serious. We both write and respond to
each issue as it comes up from our own perspective. Don't tell me you haven't
indulged in any "bashing" yourself. Implying that you are somehow better than
I when it comes to posting is senseless. You certainly aren't any better at
writing or debate.
--
Douglas D. Linder lin...@merrimack.edu
Merrimack College, N. Andover, MA {uunet,wang,ulowell}!samsung!hubdub!linderd
v^v^v Atheism: Living life on your own two feet - not on your knees! v^v^v^
"By the cold and religious we were taken in hand -
shown how to feel good; and told to feel bad."
- Roger Waters, from The Final Cut (Pink Floyd)
Doug Linder
> Now, you may be horrified at this attitude. There are those who are
> equally horrified by people who favor the ban on prayer in the schools.
> There are people far less radical than Christian Scientists who believe
> that prayer is at least as important for one's overall well being as
> medical care. There are people who are as shocked that children are
> being denied spiritual care as you are that children are being denied
> medical care. Should your prejudices carry more weight than theirs?
Erann, I read an understood your posting, and I agree with you that there are
some costs of freedom which we might not always like. However, in this case I
really do think my opinions (not prejudices) do in fact carry more weight. I
suggest that we do this logically. Suppose we agree that what everyone wnats
is for children to be healthy and not die. OK, say we take 100 kids and put
them in a standard hospital where they recieve whatever medical care trained
doctors feel necessary. then we take 100 other kids as a control group (poor
things) and put them in an ideantical hospital in every way except instead of
doctors, priests pray over them for the same amount of time. In addition,
families and even churches around the country are encouraged to pray that these
kids get well. At the end, why don't we make the law based on a logical
experiment: whichever group had more surviving kids? I think we all know which
group that would be.
Actually, I wonder why ANY christians send their kids to hospitals at all.
It would seem that if, as a chraistain, a person's faith were TRULY strong,
then they would think they way the Christin Scientists (oxymoron) do: is "god"
is almighty (and we believe he is) then he will heal the kid if he wants, and
let the kid die if that's what he desires.
So, how about it? Hey, Charley Wingate, do you send your kids to the doctor
when they are sick? How strong is YOUR faith? Rodney Raymond Morrison?
What's that? You DO send your kids to the doctor? What's the matter, isn't
your faith strong enough? You DO think god is omnipotent, don't you?
> Perhaps when enough children have died, people will start to think twice
> about becoming (or remaining) Christian Scientists.
Feh! You'd think that by now enough PEOPLE have died, period, as a result of
xtainity that people would have to be PAID to profess that belief in the
death-cult in ANY sect.
--
Douglas D. Linder lin...@merrimack.edu
Merrimack College, N. Andover, MA {uunet,wang,ulowell}!samsung!hubdub!linderd
v^v^v Atheism: Living life on your own two feet - not on your knees! v^v^v^
"Though I drew this conclusion, now it draws me."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, from Thus Spake Zarathustra
btif...@pbs.uucp
Date: 21 Apr 90 21:55:27 GMT
>This price of freedom should not be paid by children. There are people
>that beat their children because they believe that "spare the rod
>spoil the child". Should society allow this behavior in the name of
>the parents' freedom?
"Society" has no business interfering in the matter, provided we are
talking about loving, God-ordained discipline designed to train up a child in
the way that he should go, so that when he is old he will not depart from it.
Withholding the rod of discipline because of the current society's warped
views regarding the supposed inherent goodness of man is possibly the worst
type of child abuse, and it's pretty clear from even a cursory look at the
ills of our present society what a lack of discipline leads to. Foolishness
is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod will drive it far from him. The
irksome thing is that most people apparently can see no difference between
loving correction using "the rod" (whatever non-injuring instrument that might
be), and the perverted abusive beating, scalding, whipping, punching, or
whatever else it is that is done to children [or wives, for that matter] by
sick people. In our zeal to correct such abuse we must not deny parents
their God-ordained right to function as God's representatives in instructing
and training their children in the right way, which will from time to time
involve physical discipline.
>Medical care is a human right.
The opportunity to care for oneself medically or to seek medical care
would fit the Founding Fathers' idea of a "right". They would not have said
you had a right to require me to provide it. Of course, if you were in need
and I could assist and refused to, I'd be wrong. Nevertheless, it is worse
to extort money or other services from me to pay for your medical care
involuntarily.
>Whoever deprives another of a human right, whether the denier is a
>government or parent, is not exercising freedom, but abusing power.
What is a "human right"? This must be answered before your assertion
can be evaluated. The Founding Fathers recognized man as an eternal being
whose rights are endowed by his Creator, and that temporal governments were
obligated to uphold those eternal rights. If you mean that any authority
which seeks to abridge such God-given rights is abusing power, you are right.
Such is the case with our present government. If there is no God, and man is
not eternal, we have no rights, only revokable privileges granted by the state,
which becomes god. That, in fact, is the situation in this country now (not
that there is no God, but that we have denied His existence and replaced Him
with ourselves), and our rights are in the gravest peril. We have lost most
of what was won in the War for Independence, and the rate of decline is
increasing.
"For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God, or
give thanks; but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish
heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged
the glory of the incorruptible [immortal] God for an image in the form of
corruptible [mortal] man ... therefore God gave them over to the lusts of
their hearts ... for they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and
worshiped and served the creature [i.e., themselves] rather than the
Creator ..." -- Romans 1:21-25
"The fool has said in his heart, 'There is no God.'" Psalm 14:1
>It is gross injustice to treat another human as property, even if
>you are that person's parent.
"Behold, children are a GIFT [heritage] of the Lord; the fruit of
the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, so are the
children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of
them ..." Psalm 127:3-5. Children belong to God and are lent to parents,
thus they belong to the parents. They do NOT belong to the state, contrary
to the general belief going around these days. They also do not merely
belong to themselves (and neither do you). God has designated the FAMILY
as the training ground for children; not the school (man's invention), not
the peer group, not the government. Fathers are charged with the responsibility
of bringing up their children in the knowledge and admonition of the Lord.
"There never was a society throughout all of history....without a
family as the central unit for launching the education of children,
the character formation, and as the moral agent of society."
-- Amitai Etzioni
"The group consisting of mother, father, and child (is) the main
educational agency of mankind."
-- Martin Luther King
=============================================================
From: schv...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Schavland)
Date: 21 Apr 90 22:31:30 GMT
>Since when is medical care a human right? I always thought that people
>have (in theory) the "right" to do anything they want as long as it doesn't
>infringe upon the "rights" of others. Saying that medical care is a human
>right is just as wrong as saying that employment or silly putty is a
>human right.
That is the present day view: I have a right to do whatever I want
as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else (or infringe on their rights, which
is construed to be their "right to do whatever they want"). Aside from the
fact that it never did, does not now, and never will work, it is far, far
removed from the original understanding of rights upon which this nation was
founded. You do NOT have a right to do whatever you want. You are temporarily
allowed to get away with it, it is true, but don't confuse mercy with a right.
The original understanding of rights was that they come from God, and we are
responsible to God. (Remove God, and of course, I have just as much "right"
to do anything I want as anybody; in fact, without God, who are you to tell me
I can't do something which hurts you if it pleases me and I'm big enough to
get away with it? If there is no God, there are no rights, just the rule
of the strongest -- THINK ABOUT IT before you blast me!) Without belief in
God (the true God, not the New Age concept), there can be no lasting virtue in
the people, and the nation cannot long endure. This will become more evident
in the near future.
"The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it
connected in one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil
government with the principles of Christianity, from the day of
the Declaration ... They (the American people) were bound by
the laws of God, which they all, and by the laws of the Gospel,
which they nearly all acknowledged as the rules of their
conduct."
-- John Quincy Adams, 1821
"[In American democracy, rights] were granted on the ground that
man is God's creature. That is, freedom was given to the
individual conditionally, in the assumption of his constant
religious responsibility."
-- Alexander Solzhenitsyn
"It is indeed a truth, which all the great apostles of freedom
outside the nationalistic school have never tired of emphasizing,
that freedom has never worked without deeply ingrained moral beliefs
and that coercion can be reduced to a minimum only where individuals
can be expected as a rule to conform voluntarily to certain
principles."
-- Friedrich Hayek
"Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their
disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites; in proportion
as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as
their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their varity
and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen
to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery
of knaves."
-- Edmund Burke, in "Letter to a Member of the National Assembly"
"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or
happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical
idea."
-- James Madison
(in debates during the Virginia ratifying convention, June 20, 1788)
"Republican institutions in the hands of a virtuous and God-fearing
nation are the very best in the world, but in the hands of a corrupt
and irreligious people they are the very worst, and the most
effective weapons of destruction. An indignant people may rise in
rebellion against a cruel tyrant: but who will rise against the
tyranny of the people in possession of the ballot-box and the whole
machinery of government? Here lies our great danger, and it is
increasing every year.
"Destroy our churches, close our Sunday-schools, abolish the Lord's
Day, and our Republic would become an empty shell, and our people
would tend to heathenism and barbarism. Christianity is the most
powerful factor in our society and the pillar of our institutions."
-- Philip Shaff, 1889
==============================================================
From: bra...@cs.utexas.edu (Bradley L. Richards)
Date: 23 Apr 90 05:09:53 GMT
>You're right--these are *very* different issues. The ban on prayer in
>public schools is a ban on *organized* prayer. Those people who believe
>prayer is important are free to pray on their own. And if some children
>of non-Christians grow up and convert to Christianity, that change of belief
>is just fine. But denying medical care to a child is a little more
>dramatic--the child never gets that second chance.
There wouldn't be such a flap over school prayer if only offically
organized prayer were being repressed. The fact is, children and students
(and teachers) in public schools are being harassed and persecuted by the
authorities for such activities as: being seen with a Bible; wearing T-shirts
that say anything perceived as "Christian"; being caught praying silently on
their own; meeting separately to pray and/or study the Bible, etc. Some
legal cases have even involved school officials firing Christian teachers or
harassing Christian students for meeting together off school property, after
school hours, in their own homes, on their own time!!!!! It is permissable
to teach transcendental meditation or promote a homosexual lifestyle, but
the Jewish/Christian God is illegal.
"The government is God's servant. That means that AS MEN all
government officials stand on an equal footing with their
subordinates; have no claim to superiority in any sense whatever ...
For exactly the same reason the Calvinist gives preference to a
republican form of government over any other type. In no other form
of government does the sovereignty of God, the derivative character
of government powers and the equality of men as men, find a clearer
and more eloquent expression."
-- J. C. Monsma in "What Calvinism Has Done For America"
"Indeed the concern over the Christian status of the nation is
well founded."
-- Supreme Court in 1791, upholding the right of five ratifying states to
protest the omission of a direct mention of God in the new Constitution.
"Christianity is part of our common law ... its divine origin
and truth are admitted and therefore it is not to be maliciously
and openly reviled and blasphemed against, to the annoyance of
believers or the injury of the public."
-- Supreme Court Court in 1844, Vidol vs. Girard
"Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and
of the First Amendment to it ... the general, if not the
universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to
receive encouragement by the state so far as was not
incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the
freedom of religious worship. Any attempt to level all
religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all
in utter indifference would have created universal
disapprobation, if not universal indignation."
-- Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, 1851
"Our law and our institutions must be necessarily based upon and
embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is
impossible that it should be otherwise, and in this sense and to
the extent that our civilization and our institutions are
emphatically Christian ... No purpose of action against
religion can be imputed to any legislation, state or national,
because this is a religious people. This is historically true.
From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there
is a single voice making this affirmation .. We find everywhere
a clear recognition of the same truth ... this is a Christian
nation."
-- Supreme Court in 1892, Church of the Holy Trinity vs. U.S.
"We are a Christian people, according to our motto. The right
of religious freedom, demands acknowledgment, with reverence,
and duty of obedience to the will of God."
-- Supreme Court, 1952, Zorack vs. Clauson
"We have already seen that the First Amendment to the Constitution
originally applied only to the Federal Government. Thus contrary to
the popular notion, the First Amendment does not in principle set
forth the separation of 'Church and State', as it is called: the
more appropriate terms being 'religion' (the term used in the
Amendment) and 'government' (of which, in the federal area, Congress
is a branch). The First Amendment but draws a line beyond which the
powers of the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT cannot extend. But on the other
side of that line, the powers of the individual States are left
unimpaired; as is made plain by the Tenth Amendment. The Bill of
Rights begins, 'Congress shall not,' and ends with 'reserved to the
States respectively.'"
-- James Bulman in "It Is Their Right"
"Whereas the glory of Almighty God and the God of mankind is the
reason and the end of government ... therefore government
itself is a venerable ordinance of God."
-- The Great Law of Pennsylvania, April 26, 1685
"Be it therefore enacted ... that no person or persons
whatsoever within this province ... professing to believe in
Jesus Christ ... shall henceforth be any ways troubled,
molested (or disapproved of) ... in respect to his or her
religion nor in the free exercise thereof ..."
-- Maryland Toleration Act, April 21, 1649
"The rights of the colonists as Christians ... may be best
understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of
the Great Lawgiver and Head of the Christian church, which are
to be found clearly written and promulgated in the New
Testament."
-- Samuel Adams, 1772
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought
to be obedient. He reigns in heaven, and from the rising of the
sun to the setting of the sun let His kingdom come."
-- Samuel Adams at the signing of the Declaration of Independence
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political
prosperity, religion and morality are indespensable supports.
In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who
should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness,
these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere
politician, equally with pious man, ought to respect and cherish
them. A volume could not trace all the connections with private
and public felicity. Let it simply be asked where is the
security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of
religious obligation desert the oathes, which are the
instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us
with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the
influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure,
reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national
morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
-- George Washington announcing his farewell from public life
on September 17, 1796
"It is impossible to govern rightly without God and the Bible."
-- George Washington
"All human laws which contradict His laws, we are bound in
conscience to disobey."
-- George Mason, 1789
"By our form of government, the Christian religion is the
established religion."
-- Supreme Court of Maryland, 1799
"...a government and a country were to commence with the very
first foundations laid under the divine light of the Christian
religion. Let us not forget the religious character of our
nation."
-- Daniel Webster, 1820
"The Bible is the rock on which our republic rests."
-- President Andrew Jackson, 1845
"I am much afraid that the schools will prove the very gates of
hell, unless they diligently labor in explaining the Holy
Scriptures, and engraving them in the hearts of youth. I advise
no one to place his child where the Scriptures do not reign
paramount."
-- Martin Luther
"Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have
removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the
people that their liberties are the gift of God?"
-- Thomas Jefferson
"[The] Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which
[the clergy] have enveloped it, is a religion of all others most
friendly to liberty, science and the freest expressions of the
human mind."
-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to Moses Robinson, March 23, 1801
"The statist notion that governmental power should supersede
parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and
neglect children is repugnant to American tradition."
-- Supreme Court of the United States
"If man is not governed by God, then he must be governed by
tyrants."
-- William Penn
"Men and nations will change their principles to perpetuate
their existence, but God is the same yesterday, today, and
forever."
-- Star R. Scott
"Those who are not willing to fight for freedom by day are
doomed to fight tyranny by night."
"If we really value pluralism, we must recognize that it is not
appropriate in a free society for the government to use
subsidies to impose its social philosophy upon educational
institutions. That is tyranny, and must be recognized and
proclaimed as such. True, a free society cannot long endure
without a consensus of values -- but that consensus must be
genuine and vital, not a by-product of government manipulation
... There is, in other words, a direct relationship between the
abdication of moral and intellectual authority by many educators
and the persistent erosion of our freedoms -- especially our
economic freedoms."
__ Dr. John A. Howard, recently retired President of Rockford
College in Illinois, commenting on the LACK of a wall between
government and education in America today.
=============================================================================
=============================================================================
Sobering quote from Ohio School Guide Compulsory Education Law:
"The natural rights and parents to custody and control of their
children are subordinate to the power of the state to provide
for the education of children. Laws providing for the education
of children are for the protection of the state itself."
So God's laws are subordinate to the state, and the state is now God, and
individual rights are subordinate to the state (which means they are no longer
rights, merely revokable privileges), a 180-degree turnaround from the views
of the Founding Fathers. The ultimate obective is the welfare of the state.
"If we can separate a people from their history, they will be
easily persuaded." -- Karl Marx
>It's a tough question: how much do we allow the government into our family
>lives. I know someone who spanked her child in public and some well-meaning
>nitwit reported her to the police for child abuse. The cops came and put
>the whole family through a nightmare while they did a home study. Where
>do we draw the line?
A few years ago at a swimming pool I observed a pretty serious case
of child abuse perpetrated by a LARGE woman who probably outweighed her
3-year-old son about 8 times. The boy was playing in the water on the steps
at the shallow end. It was time to go: the mother informed him of this. No
response. Mother gently takes son by the hand; son begins to fly into a rage,
mother quickly lets go. Mother tries sweet talking. Son continues to play
in water. Mother resorts to lying and bribery, a sure fire way to teach her
son moral values ("if you don't come right now you won't get a candy bar").
Son ignores her: he knows he can get anything he wants if he makes a fuss,
and he knows his mom will not physically back up her authority (i.e., she has
relinquished her authority, but not her accountability for the damage she is
doing). A couple more attempts to take the boy by the hand fail miserably.
Mother resorts to pleading, a deserate "What can I do?" look on her face. I
knew exactly what she could and should do, and what that child needed, but
it wasn't my business to interfere. This woman was a victim of the current
popular and grossly mistaken ideology, and the real victim is her son. Without
the benefit of discipline he has very little chance of turning out right.
This mother is raising a rebel, and I would not want to see the end result,
when her son is 18 or 20. Whereas it was amusing to see this small boy in
complete control of this large woman, it was also pretty disgusting.
Of course, when all is said and done, one would have to admit to an
alienable right to silly putty :-) ...
Disclaimer: My views are generally diametrically opposed to those of my
employer, who assumes no responsibility for them; but this in no way makes
them any less valid.
Ken Fernald
>In article <7...@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, g...@robotics.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>>
>
> It has never, ever been the law in this nation that children or
>anyone else HAD TO pray, either in school or anywhere else. Children used
>to be free to pray or not to pray; now they are only free not to pray.
No, now they are free to pray or not to pray ON THEIR OWN TIME.
Before, they were forced to sit quitely while a public prayer was
conducted in class. Sure, they could have asked to step out for
a moment, but I don't know many pre-teens willing to submit themselves
to the resulting ridicule. In fact, when I was in school, asking would
have certainly resulting in indirect (if not direct) disciplinary action.
--
/------------------------------------------\
/ kenneth w. fernald (k...@ecersg.ncsu.edu) \
\ north carolina state university /
\------------------------------------------/
Erann Gat
> However, in this case I
> really do think my opinions (not prejudices) do in fact carry more weight.
and prayer deleted]
> At the end, why don't we make the law based on a logical experiment [?]
Not everyone shares your conviction that life should be lived according
to the outcome of scientific experiments. In particular, Christian
Scientists don't believe it, and the first amendement guarantees them
the right not to believe it. There are less extreme examples. There have
been studies that show that sex tends to reduce heart disease. Should we
require everyone, married or not, to engage in regular sex? (Hey, I'm all
for it!)
The point is PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO BE IRRATIONAL. There is perhaps
an argument to be made that they do not have the right to be irrational
with their children, but this launches us down a slippery slope. For my
money I would rather let a few Christian Scientists' children die than
open the door to the government regulating how I raise my kids.
> Actually, I wonder why ANY christians send their kids to hospitals at all.
Some Christians believe that God helps those who help themselves. Others
are simply hypocrites.
Hal J Eisen
definition of being a child's legal guardian and the definition of
child abuse. I feel that child abuse is when a parent comes home
upset about something other than the child's behaviour, yet relieves
their frustration by physically beating up on thier child. The
responsibility of a guardian is to make decisions for another
individual because that individual is incapabale of deciding for his
or her self. This includes picking a religion for the individual.
Thus, if a parent says "my child is also a Christian Scientist" then
that is as good as the child saying "please don't heal me - i trust in
god." Someone please correct me if my impression of these terms is
wrong.
Hal J Eisen
Charles Hedrick
>It would seem that if, as a chraistain, a person's faith were TRULY strong,
>then they would think they way the Christin Scientists (oxymoron) do: is "god"
>is almighty (and we believe he is) then he will heal the kid if he wants, and
>let the kid die if that's what he desires.
It may be useful to understand that Christian Science is a rather
unusual form of Christianity (if indeed it is one at all). In relying
solely on prayer, they are not just asserting that God should be
allowed to decide whether the person lives or dies. I'm not the right
person to explain Christian Science, but as I understand it, they
believe that natural law is ultimately not real. It is binding only
on those who believe it is, or who are part of a community that
believes it is and aren't individually enlightened. This is not just
an exaggerated view of the role of prayer in the rest of the Church.
It's based on a view of reality that is fundamentally different from
the one most of us believe in.
It is very unusual for Christians to have any objection to medical
service (aside from some specific cases such as abortion). The only
case I can think of the Jehovah's Witnesses' objection to some
treatments (transfusions?). None of the "major" Christian groups
(measured by numbers of members) have such objections. (A fairly
large fraction of hospitals in the U.S. were started by religious
groups.) Even those who do object to medical treatment do not do so
on the grounds that you propose (that God can heal them if he wants).
Generally Christians believe that God does most of his work through
human agents. The goal of Christianity is for us to become
instruments of God's work. To refuse help from others because God can
do it directly is to fly in the face of some of the most basic
teachings of Christ.
This is probably not the right place to discuss prayer. I'd be
interested in the results of a study such as the one you described,
where a controlled attempt is made to see whether prayer helps a
patient. (Of course setting it up is probably impossible, since you'd
have to have a control group matched to the experimental in other
ways, for whom you were sure no prayers were being offered by anyone.)
At any rate, prayer is not primarily intended to create miracles. For
the most committed Christians, it is a spiritual discipline intended
to develop their relationship to God, and to make them more effective
in serving him. It is not primarily (and for many, not at all) a way
to request miracles.
I confess that I am somewhat ambivalent about claims for miraculous
healing. The only attempt I know of to investigate such claims was by
Nolan (author of a number of well-known novels). His book "Healing"
serves as a caution to those who believe miracles have happened. It's
clear from his book that people can believe they have seen a
miraculous healing and be wrong. Unfortunately his book isn't as
helpful to me as it might be, because none of the healers he studied
was an orthodox Christian. The only one who claimed to be a Christian
faith healer was Kathryn Kuhlman, but even she had some disquieting
aspects from a Christian point of view. (She is apparently also an
astrologer.) The more plausible reports come from individual
healings, rather than the well-known media types that he studied.
I am reluctant to completely rule out healing based on prayer. I know
otherwise plausible people who have reported such events. But it's
not the hope of one of these rather unusual miracles that motivates
most people to pray, nor would any sane Christian suggest that we omit
normal medical care while praying.
Dust In The Wind
I was going to stay out of this thread, because all the useful things had
already been said.
So far, the best comment was that more children die in car accidents than as
a result of religious refusal of health care. We all know this, and we all
know that humans have a right not to ride in cars, but nobody has said that
parents shouldn't be allowed to expose their children to such a danger.
However, Doug Linder seems to have returned, and he suggested this
experiment:
> OK, say we take 100 kids and put them in a standard hospital where they
>recieve whatever medical care trained doctors feel necessary. then we
>take 100 other kids as a control group (poor things) and put them in an
>ideantical hospital in every way except instead of doctors, priests pray
>over them for the same amount of time. [ And legislate whichever works
> best. - kwh ]
Firstly, if I remember my statistics correctly, the effectiveness rate for
`modern medicine' is about 80%, and the effectiveness rate for `doing
nothing at all' is about 60%. I don't know of any data on prayers. (If
these statistics are old or mangled by senility, corrections are welcome.)
But more importantly, I find Doug's article horrifying.
What scares me about him is that, though he clearly believes the control
group is going to have more children die, Doug is willing to sacrifice them
to prove his point -- apparently, those children who die are insignificant
when it comes to getting his own opinions legislated.
At first, it might seem ironic that Doug, who goes on long & loud about the
separation of church and state, and who likes to talk about how horrible
religious organisations have been, would suggest that we sacrifice some
children in order to control the free exercise of religion. But it has been
my experience that fanatics of any flavor are equally unconcerned with human
life -- all that matters is that _they_ have control of the people who do
manage to survive.
(The rest of Doug's article was the standard Christianity bashing that he
has posted nonstop since he first showed up on the net, and since he said
nothing new there's no point in replying to it.)
kil...@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy
"Silence is the best reply to a fool."
-- Ali ibn-abu-Talib, cit. from Ali the Caliph
btif...@pbs.uucp
Carl Tait
>br...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes:
>>I'm not a lawyer or anything, but IMHO medical care and employment are
>>covered under "pursuit of happiness" in the Declaration of Independence.
>
>Well, IMHO this line of thinking is a very dangerous one. Does that mean
>that unemployment (and accompanying welfare) is covered under the "pursuit
>of happiness" clause? How about those people who want to use XTC under that
>clause? Maybe medical care should be covered under the "life" part of it,
>but I think that the "pursuit of happiness" is so vague as to serve no
>function other than giving something for lawyers to invoke when they're
>desparate.
And remember that "pursuit of happiness" != "happiness." The government
cannot prevent me from attempting to write and publish The Great American
Novel (assuming it doesn't contain national defense secrets), but there's
certainly no guarantee I will achieve the Nirvana of actual publication.
Neither can the state coerce taxpayers into forking over the money to get
my literary gem into print. Freedom of speech lets me write what I want,
but at my own expense. I'm free to pursue happiness, but that doesn't
mean I'll attain it.
Carl Tait
Ronald BODKIN
>an argument to be made that they do not have the right to be irrational
>with their children, but this launches us down a slippery slope. For my
>money I would rather let a few Christian Scientists' children die than
>open the door to the government regulating how I raise my kids.
parents to do anything they like with their children. Obviously, there
comes a point where irrational treatment becomes child abuse. Is
withholding life-saving treatment child abuse when it was readily
available? I think so. What if the parents, instead of being christians,
just had "bad vibes" about "hospitals and all that stuff". Would you
still be happy to allow their decision not to save their child's life
alone?
Ron
David Goldfarb
)However, Doug Linder seems to have returned, and he suggested this
)experiment:
)> OK, say we take 100 kids and put them in a standard hospital where they
)>recieve whatever medical care trained doctors feel necessary. then we
)>take 100 other kids as a control group (poor things) and put them in an
)>ideantical hospital in every way except instead of doctors, priests pray
)>over them for the same amount of time. [ And legislate whichever works
)> best. - kwh ]
)
)Firstly, if I remember my statistics correctly, the effectiveness rate for
)`modern medicine' is about 80%, and the effectiveness rate for `doing
)nothing at all' is about 60%. I don't know of any data on prayers.
)
)But more importantly, I find Doug's article horrifying.
)
)What scares me about him is that, though he clearly believes the control
)group is going to have more children die, Doug is willing to sacrifice them
)to prove his point -- apparently, those children who die are insignificant
)when it comes to getting his own opinions legislated.
)
)Darren F. Provine
Oh, come *on*. Darren, (if I may call you Darren) I *know* you can
do better than this. I've *seen* you do better than this.
Are you familiar with the phrase "thought-experiment"? Doug Linder
was not seriously advocating that we *do* this experiment any more than
Erwin Schrodinger was advocating that we lock a cat in a box with a vial
of cyanide. He was making up an example to try to prove a point, nothing
more. I went back and looked at his article, and there was nothing, *nothing*
to indicate that he actually thinks that we should really do what he des-
cribes. If I were Tim Maroney, I'd accuse you now of trying to confuse the
issue by wilfully misreading. But I think you made an honest mistake, if
a rather bizarre one.
If it turns out that I'm wrong about Doug's views, of course, then
I'm prepared to join you in shock and horror. But I don't think I am.
(Incidentally, for real scientific value we need at least one more
control group: a group of children who neither receive medicine nor are
prayed for. It would also be good to include a group that recieves medical
care *and* is prayed for.)
David Goldfarb gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu (Insert standard disclaimer)
"And if you said, 'Jump in the river,' I would,
Because it would probably be a good idea..."
--Sinead O'Connor
T_Rex
>In article <82...@becker.UUCP> b...@becker.UUCP (Bruce Becker) writes:
>>In article <1990Apr21....@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> schv...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Schavland) writes:
>>|In article <34...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pie...@cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce) writes:
>>|>
>>|>Medical care is a human right.
>>|>
>>|Since when is medical care a human right? I always thought that people
[stuff deleted]
[Bruce writes...]
>> It puzzles me why anyone would attack the concept
>> of "Medical care is a human right". Somehow the
>> idea of medical care infringing on the rights of
>> others is laughable.
>
[Jeff writes...]
>Medical care can very easily infringe on the rights of others. If you
>tax me to pay for your "right" of medical care, then it becomes my business.
>If you force me as a, let's say parent who is a Christian Scientist, to
>provide medical care to my children, you have certianly "infringed" on
>my rights.
>--
>Jeffrey A. Schavland
>
It seems to me that this is the Canadian 'universality of health-care' vs
the tiered, privately-insured system I understand to be the norm in the States.
( if I'm wrong about this, let me know ). Jeff, I think you're talking about
two different issues here; the latter concerns the right of someone to
refuse medical care, if I read you right ( this is a *real* can of worms!).
The former concerns whether you, as a taxpayer, want to finance the medical
care of someone else. Now, I'm concerned about where my tax $ go, 'cause up
here we pay *alot* of 'em! I'd be upset if I was financing someone's nose job,
or butt tuck, but I don't begrudge a penny spent on improving or maintaining
someone's health, esp. someone who couldn't afford it otherwise! Jeff, do
you *really* feel that this is an infringement on your rights? Don't people
come before dollars. Taxes get spent in alot worse ways, !
Just curious,
Pete.
br...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
> . . . Jeff, I think you're talking about
> two different issues here; the latter concerns the right of someone to
> refuse medical care, if I read you right ( this is a *real* can of worms!).
> The former concerns whether you, as a taxpayer, want to finance the medical
> care of someone else. Now, I'm concerned about where my tax $ go, 'cause up
> here we pay *alot* of 'em! I'd be upset if I was financing someone's nose job
> someone's health, esp. someone who couldn't afford it otherwise! Jeff, do
> you *really* feel that this is an infringement on your rights? Don't people
> come before dollars. Taxes get spent in alot worse ways, !
Yeah, no kidding!
Interesting point about cosmetic surgery. Is that stuff really medical care?
I mean, seems like it's more body modification than actual treatment (putting
it more on line with tattoos and piercing than heart or lung surgery). If the
fact that it's done by a doctor legitimizes it, then a lot of what's been
said about the Church of the AMA may well be correct.
Cathy Johnston
>>> OK, say we take 100 kids and put them in a standard hospital where they
>>>recieve whatever medical care trained doctors feel necessary. then we
>>>take 100 other kids as a control group (poor things) and put them in an
>>>ideantical hospital in every way except instead of doctors, priests pray
>>>over them for the same amount of time. [ And legislate whichever works
>>> best. - kwh ]
You've already explained that this is merely a thought experiment. Perhaps
you might indulge me in one:
Next door to you lives a Christian Scientist couple named, say Smith. They
have a little boy (let's call him Joey.) You become aware that Joey is sick,
and that the Smiths are not taking him to a doctor. You try to convince
them to seek out medical help, but they refuse. So you call the police.
The police try very hard to convince the Smiths to let them take Joey to
the emergency room, but they refuse. The police officers can see that
Joey is very sick, and know that the law requires the Smiths to seek
medical care for a minor, so they arrest the Smiths and take Joey to the
emergency room.
Now in the emergency room, the doctors do some tests and see that Joey has
an intestinal blockage that needs surgery right away. They rush him to the
operating room, open him up, and discover that the blockage had already
started to clear spontaneously. (Maybe when the ambulance hit that pothole
on Main St. Joey was at just the right angle that it popped loose. Maybe
his parents' prayers healed him. But one way or another, Joey would have
gotten well without the surgery.) Joey picks up a postoperative infection
in the hospital and dies.
Ok. Let's see where we are here. The Smith's are in jail because you turned
them in. Joey is dead as a direct result of the unnecessary medical
treatment which you had a big part of forcing on him over the objections
of his parents.
People die of complications of surgery all the time. People have
unnecessary surgery all the time. It's not even all that uncommon for
people to die of complications from unnecessary surgery (it's called
malpractice.) That this hasn't happened to a child of Christian Scientists
forced into medical care probably says more about the number of Christian
Scientists and the difficulty of knowing whether their children are sick.
I would hope that, unless you have a fanatic religious devotion to the
laws of chance, you would be somewhat uncomfortable at this point. A
child is dead, and as a result of actions taken against his parents' will.
You and I accept these things as the risks of living in an imperfect world;
Christian Scientists, as Charles Hedrick has pointed out, have a very
different world view, and they *do*not* accept these risks. All those
sayings about how "life is risky" and "nothing is sure" are scant comfort
when a child is dead -- indeed, they sound a little trite..
I'm not claiming to have any answers. I'm just saying that I think your
answer has some serious problems. Maybe I'm just objecting to you seeming
so sure that the problem is so simple. Medical ethics are hard questions,
even when dealing with people who agree with your values and world view.
I think it is a serious question to ask whether, as a general rule, a
child's best interests are served by his/her parents or by prosecutors,
judges and radical special interest groups bringing lawsuits.
--
Cathy Johnston ca...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu ca...@gargoyle.uchicago.bitnet
"Education is a strange good. Once people pay for it, they demand less of it"
James P. Willey
>
>Interesting point about cosmetic surgery. Is that stuff really medical care?
>I mean, seems like it's more body modification than actual treatment (putting
>it more on line with tattoos and piercing than heart or lung surgery). If the
>fact that it's done by a doctor legitimizes it, then a lot of what's been
>said about the Church of the AMA may well be correct.
>
Cosmetic surgery can be considered medical care under the right
circumstances. If you were in an accident and had major injuries to your
face, then cosmetic reconstruction of your face would be a natural part
of your medical treatment. However, a tummy tuck, face lift, etc should
not be considered as legitimate medical care.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
James P. Willey hay...@arrakis.NEVADA.EDU
Disclaimer: I'm responsible for my employers opinions, not vice versa.
Kraneberg, an oldtime historian of [North] American technology, once said-
in the form of a First Law- "Technology is neither positive, negative,
nor neutral."
Indeed. It is all three.
And omnipresent.
(Robotech)
Jon Taylor
> It has never, ever been the law in this nation that children or
> anyone else HAD TO pray, either in school or anywhere else. Children used
> to be free to pray or not to pray; now they are only free not to pray.
Not so. Children are as free to pray now as they were free NOT to
pray before. When I was very young, the teacher said the Lord's Prayer,
and I was free to ignore it (though there were undoubtedly schools where
things were more coercive). Nowadays, there is no organized prayer, but
a religious child may find plenty of opportunities to pray at his/her
will. I've never once heard of anyone (even fanatics like MM O'Hair)
trying to prevent individuals from praying in public places.
Joe Rossi
> (Incidentally, for real scientific value we need at least one more
>control group: a group of children who neither receive medicine nor are
>prayed for. It would also be good to include a group that recieves medical
>care *and* is prayed for.)
yeah, well if I was kid i'd want to be in this last group.
--
jro...@jato.jpl.nasa.gov "big wheel turn by the grace of God"
**********************STANDARD DISCLAIMER******************************
Dust In The Wind
Recap: Doug Linder posted an article about a medical experiment which he
clearly expected to be fatal to some of the subjects, and I responded
negatively.
David Goldfarb has followed up, and he seems to think that Mr. Linder was
not seriously suggesting anything, but rather speaking hypothetically. In
rereading Mr. Linder's article I see where he does use phrases like `say
we take', which indicate that I was in error. I apologise for my mistake.
Anyway, I have the impression that Doug would only abide by the results of
this experiment if it worked out the way he wants. Suppose it worked out
that 69% of the medically treated kids got well, and 71% of the control
group got well (by whatever mechanism you like, either "God is in a
troublemaking mood" or "statistical anomaly"); would Doug then support
legislation of prayer as medical care?
It is my impression that Doug would be against the legislation of prayer
in such a case -- and so would I. Further, anyone who took such results
and determined not to go see doctors anymore would be (IMHO) acting very
foolishly.
I doubt such an experiment would serve any purpose; I find it unlikely that
Doug would accept as valid any results contrary to what he wanted. If one's
hypothesis can only be verified (and not falsified), then we aren't actually
dealing with a proper application of the scientific method.
-=-=-
What do I think? Well, I don't have all the answers. I am against having
the state interfere unneccesarily in child raising, but I am also against
child abuse. Jim Meritt pointed out that there are laws about safety seats,
but even with such devices children still die in accidents. If the state
is going to insist that parents cannot decide to put children at risk, then
can parents override a human's right not to get in a car, just because the
human is a little one? If so, why can't a parent choose to override the
`right' to medical care as well?
This is quite like a situation where a person is in a coma, and the decision
must be made to turn off the life support machines. If use of medical
technology overrides the family's decision in the case of children, why not
keep everybody in a coma alive forever? In neither case are we certain that
the patient will actually get better. It is likely that an adult will have
made religious decisions, where we tend to think that children are not old
enough to have done so -- but I don't much like the idea that the state can
make religious decisions for children.
I am doubtful that there is any perfect solution to this issue.
-=-=-
People can call me `Darren' if they'd like, but `kilroy' might be clearer
in some situations, as there are several `Darren's around here. (You may
also address me as `Sir' or `Your Magnificence'. 8^)
Also, since Tim Maroney doesn't seem to read this group (and is therefore
not here to defend himself), can we please leave him out of our articles?
(I've never actually had an exchange with Mr. Maroney, but he seems to get
an inordinate amount of bad press.)
kil...@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy
"Okay, I'm a moron." -- Dave Peru
Erann Gat
You are ignorant of history. While it is true that there has not (to my
knwoledge) been a law that made it a crime not to pray, there have been
laws requiring teachers to lead prayers, bible study, moments of silence,
etc. Some of these laws have been quite recent. It is true that in
many cases the students officially had the option of being excused from
these activities, but as a practical matter walking out on a prayer in
a school in the deep south is an invitation to ostracism. (Believe me,
I have first hand experience.) Freedom on paper and freedom in fact are
two very different things.
Today individual students are quite free to pray in the schools! They
can pray between classes. They can pray during lunch. They can pray
after school. They are not free to pray during class and disrupt a
lesson, and they are not free to coerce others to pray. And that is
how it should be.
Erann Gat
g...@ai.jpl.nasa.gov
These opinions are my own, but everyone is welcome to them.
Erann Gat
You missed the point. Personally I agree that irrational treatment
of children can be child abuse. The trouble is that no one can agree
where to draw the thin line between abuse and parental judgement. My
contention is that if we are to have religious freedom in this country
then we must never allow the government to draw that line, and we must
occasionally accept even the death of an innocent child as the cost of
that freedom.
If you try you can come up with a horror story for ANYTHING! Suppose
a fine upstanding Methodist family on their way to church got into a
car accident and their kid died despite the seatbelt. Would you
prosecute them? It is a scientifically provable fact that staying
home on Sunday is safer than driving to Church. Is it child abuse to
expose children to that sort of danger just because of a religious
belief? Of course not. The only difference between that and the
Christian Scientists is prejudicial.
As far as parents with "bad vibes": no I would not be happy if their
child died. I suspect that they would be even less happy than I.
(If not the kid is probably better off dead anyway.) To paraphrase
Voltaire, I may not like the way you raise your kids, but I will
defend to the death your right to choose how you do it.
HOWEVER, we do have to excercise some good judgement when we decide what
is a religious belief and what is not. If an alchohlic bum stood up
in court and explained that he had beaten his eight year old daughter
to death with a belt because "God made me do it" then he is either
lying or psychotic. We may decide that the Christian Scientists are
lying about their beliefs to escape prosecution (unlikely) or that
they are psychotic (perhaps more likely). But if we decide that they
are neither sane and sincere then we have no choice but to accept the
deaths of their children as they have or forfeit our freedom. I
unhesitatingly will choose the former.
Consider this: suppose that the Christian Scientists had enough political
clout to pass a law banning medical care. Is there any substantive
difference between their denying you the freedom to choose medical care
and your denying them the freedom to reject it?
Erann Gat
> HOWEVER, we do have to excercise some good judgement when we decide what
> is a religious belief and what is not. If an alchohlic bum stood up
> in court and explained that he had beaten his eight year old daughter
> to death with a belt because "God made me do it" then he is either
> lying or psychotic. We may decide that the Christian Scientists are
> lying about their beliefs to escape prosecution (unlikely) or that
> they are psychotic (perhaps more likely). But if we decide that they
> are neither sane and sincere then we have no choice but to accept the
What I meant to say was "neither insane nor insincere". Sorry.
^^ ^^^^^^
> deaths of their children as they have or forfeit our freedom. I
> unhesitatingly will choose the former.
Erann Gat
g...@ai.jpl.nasa.gov
Andy Freeman
>Jeff, do you *really* feel that this is an infringement on your
>rights? Don't people come before dollars. Taxes get spent in alot
>worse ways, !
Without stating my position, I note that these arguments are not
very compelling. Bad spending in one part of govt does not justify
slightly better spending in other parts. "Don't people come before
dollars" is actually wrong; inefficient govt spending kills people.
(Health care spending in the US has several good examples of this;
the diseases of the pretty get far more support than things that
kill the ugly, and the govt is no better than the private sector.)
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@neon.stanford.edu
BELLNET: (415) 723-3088
Tom Fortner
>In the news today, yet another couple is being tried for vital
>witholding medication from a child on religious grounds, causing
>his death. It seems to be an epidemic. This time the charge is manslaughter,
>not simple child endangerment. I think the newsperson said "Christian
>Science", but I'm not sure.
Let me make it clear that the overwhelming majority of Christian "fundamental-
ists" (I despise that term, but...) disapprove of withholding heath care from
minors or majors on such religious grounds. Christian Scientists, Mormons, and
Unity School of Christianity members frequently are confused with us, but are
not part of the "Bible-believing community of faith". Please don't make so
blatant an error to confuse us with them.
Tom.
--
Tom Fortner
Christian Medical & Dental Society
UUCP: cms2!tomf
INTERNET: to...@cms2.lonestar.org
Wayne Aiken
>In article <7...@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, g...@robotics.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Erann Gat)
>> Actually, that is exactly what it means. It used to be the law of the land
>> that students had to pray in the public schools. ....
> It has never, ever been the law in this nation that children or
>anyone else HAD TO pray, either in school or anywhere else. Children used
>to be free to pray or not to pray; now they are only free not to pray.
This is 100% false. The original poster was correct in that at one time,
organized prayers were practiced in public schools. It may not have exactly
been the law that students were *forced* to participate, but it might as well
have been. Students who did not care to participate were subjected to almost
complete ostracism and hostility from students and faculty alike. Kids have
enough to worry about (like getting a good education) without having to deal
with this.
The case Murray vs. Curlett in 1963, which forbade the schools to participate
in religious ceremonies (of which prayer is an integral part) said absolutely
nothing, nor in any way forbade anyone to pray anywhere at any time. The
only effect it had is that schools may not conduct prayers nor make special
accomodations for those who wish to do so. A child is perfectly free to pray
any time they wish; during home-room period, recess, before tests, or at any
other time, as long as they don't create a disruption. Think about this- how
can anyone possibly stop a person from praying? The school prayer issue is
possibly one of the biggest non-issues ever created. It isn't enough for some
people that they be allowed to worship as they choose- they must have the
endorsement and involvement of government- that is a right they don't have.
Wayne Aiken neto...@ncsuvm.bitnet "You can BE what
PO Box 30904 neto...@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC 27622 wa...@shumv1.ncsu.edu --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171 BBS: (919) 782-3095
Erann Gat
> then we must ... occasionally accept ... the death of an
> innocent child as the cost of that freedom.
>
I was positive I would get massively flamed for that comment, but not
a single person has replied to it. This has me slightly worried. Was
everyone so massively offended that they decided it not worth the
keystrokes? The only other explanations I can come up with are 1) The
message didn't make it through the net, 2) It made it through nut nobody
read it or 3) everyone agrees with me. Somehow, none of these seem
very likely.
Since no one seems to want to take the trouble, I will flame myself. It
occurred to me (after I posted the article) that there is a fatal flaw
in my reasoning. Consider: according to strict Christian doctrine, if someone
dies in a state of Grace they go to heaven: instant eternal bliss,
no worries, no taxes, just fun in the son. It seems reasonable to conclude
then that for me to kill someone while they are in a state of Grace is the
greatest favor I can do them. I risk my own immortal soul to insure that
theirs is dispatched directly into heaven with no further suffering on
earth and no more chances to transgress and be cast into the flames.
Granted there are not many people who actually believe this. But as a
matter of principle I am now willing to draw the line limiting religious
freedom where it causes the death of another person. Dear me, where
will it all end? If we draw the line at killing, how about causing
permanent disabilties? temporary excruciating pain? mild mental anguish?
May I be allowed back in the human race now?
> Erann Gat
> g...@ai.jpl.nasa.gov
>
Or maybe it's my signature. Honestly, I intended it to be humorous:
chris ross
> Withholding the rod of discipline because of the current society's
> warped views regarding the supposed inherent goodness of man is possibly
> the worst type of child abuse, and it's pretty clear from even a cursory
> look at the ills of our present society what a lack of discipline leads
> to. Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod will drive
> it far from him. The irksome thing is that most people apparently can
> see no difference between loving correction using "the rod" (whatever
> non-injuring instrument that might be), and the perverted abusive
> beating, scalding, whipping, punching, or whatever else it is that is
> done to children [or wives, for that matter] by sick people.
I agree that many individuals lack self-discipline, that this lack causes a
variety of social ills, and that extreme physical abuse is the province of
the insane. However, I consider your belief in the necessity of some degree
of physical violence -- whether or not you call it "discipline" -- to be
untenable.
To do violence to any other human, except in self-defense against violence,
is to assert that _you_ are unwilling to seek other means of resolving your
differences. You are in effect saying, "I have done all I can think of to
convince this person through reason, so it's now OK for me to use pain to
motivate them."
With respect to children, those who consider it appropriate to resort to
violence as discipline "on very rare occasions, only when absolutely
necessary," should consider the following hypothetical statements:
I only rarely strike my close friends.
I very rarely strike my parents.
I rarely strike total strangers.
I seldom strike my doctor, or my boss, or the bus driver, or the
checkout person at the supermarket, or...
I only strike these people when I deem it necessary,
and then only lovingly.
There's a term for the actions described above (the intent of the fifth
statement notwithstanding.) It is "assault," and is considered a crime
in our society.
The obvious response to this is that children, and one's own children in
particular, are somehow qualitatively different. They certainly are!
Children are simply not mentally equipped to deal with the trauma of being
abused, no matter how much love their parents profess to feel as they
deliver the abuse. They are also physically defenseless, a fact which is
consciously or unconsciously taken advantage of. Both these facts only
make the crime more serious.
Why do you think children cry when struck, even if the blows cause no pain?
It is because they have placed complete trust in their parents as sources of
care and sustenance, and that trust has been betrayed. They do not perceive
that such discipline is beneficial; something they have always associated
with love and joy has somehow suddenly become a source of pain and hate.
The poolside incident you describe late in your article also fails to
support your argument. Neither the tendency of parents to resort to
violence nor the subsequent obedience by their children prove that violence
is necessary; they simply show that the parents lack the patience, self-
control, and/or intelligence to seek nonviolent alternatives. Violence also
serves to bring about the very social ills which you claim it prevents,
because it teaches children that violence is a valid problem-solving method.
> In our zeal to correct such abuse we must not deny parents their God-
> ordained right to function as God's representatives in instructing and
> training their children in the right way, which will from time to time
> involve physical discipline.
To call the use of violence a "God-ordained right" only serves to illustrate
the extent to which religious dogmatists are willing to rationalize their
desire to resort to violence. Their argument can be simply restated as
"someone claiming to speak with divine authority once wrote that it's ok to
strike my children; therefore it's ok to strike my children."
I can write a book, too. I can state therein that any form of violence
against children is a crime. I can also claim, as do the authors of the
Bible, that I speak with divine authority, and my claim will be as
meaningless as theirs. That millions of people choose to follow the Bible
does not prove its validity; it is merely evidence of human gullibility.
==========
On the subject of religion and morality,
you make the following quotations:
> "Men are qualified for civil liberty, in exact proportion to their
> disposition to put moral chains upon their appetites; in proportion
> as their love of justice is above their rapacity; in proportion as
> their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their varity
> and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen
> to the counsel of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery
> of knaves."
> "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or
> happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical
> idea."
Once again, I am in emphatic agreement with your basic points. But your
assertion that morality cannot exist without religion is unfounded. Much of
your article comprises statements that put forth this assertion in one form
or another. None of them support it. If it were true, all non-religious
people would be amoral, which is not the case.
(a discussion of humanist ethics is appropriate at this point,
but it's, er, 4AM. maybe tomorrow :-)
chris ross---\ "Your species has the most amazing capacity for
| | self-deception, matched only by its ingenuity
cjr...@bbn.com in destroying itself." -- The 7th Doctor
Steve Lamont
>I mean, seems like it's more body modification than actual treatment (putting
>it more on line with tattoos and piercing than heart or lung surgery). If the
>fact that it's done by a doctor legitimizes it, then a lot of what's been
>said about the Church of the AMA may well be correct.
Well, there are certainly abuses of any medical procedure, cosmetic surgery
included.
However, there are certainly instances where cosmetic surgery may be necessary
to the well being of the patient, say, repairing the damage done by a
disfiguring accident or a birth defect. While these conditions may not be
life threatening, their alleviation can be of tremendous benefit to the
patient, from a psychological or even social standpoint. These benefits can
range from elevated self esteem to enhanced employability (studies have shown
that, unfortunately, attractive people have an easier time finding jobs than
less attractive people -- regardless of ability).
If we restrict the label of legitimacy to only those medical procedures which
involve life threatening situations, a great number of beneficial services
will be "delegitimized." For instance, the common cold isn't *likely* to kill
you, so, under such a restrictive definition, it would not be "legitimate" to
treat it until such time as it becomes pneumonia.
Are breast augmentations, liposuctions, and fanny tucks legitimate medical
procedures? It depends upon the application. If someone is going to be
miserable without one, then maybe it is valid.
spl (the p stands for
perhaps you can take a
few inches off this
honker, Doc...)
--
Steve Lamont, sciViGuy (919) 248-1120 EMail: s...@ncsc.org
NCSC (The other one), Box 12732, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
Don't send in no bums. I want deals.
-John Steinbeck, _The Grapes of Wrath_
Ronald BODKIN
>You missed the point. Personally I agree that irrational treatment
>of children can be child abuse. The trouble is that no one can agree
>where to draw the thin line between abuse and parental judgement. My
>contention is that if we are to have religious freedom in this country
>then we must never allow the government to draw that line, and we must
>occasionally accept even the death of an innocent child as the cost of
>that freedom.
the children on the basis of strong evidence (e.g. that medical care
would save the child's life) I don't think its reasonable to allow
the abuse. I appreciate your worry about infringing on religious
freedom, but I don't see how you can avoid imposing certain
constraints on parents. For example, what if someone believes that
children should be (severely) beaten for punishment (say its a religious
belief of theirs). Is this acceptable? You suggest that psychosis is
an acceptable standard, but implicitly this only acts to make certain,
universally accepted as, "loony" sets of beliefs as not free, as they
are considered pyschotic. As for your Methodist family, obviously
taking children out of the house (this only an instance) is not even
slightly dangerous (it is necessary, in fact). As for there being
no difference, I would submit that an infinitessimal risk is really
not comparable with near-certain death. The only difference in our
beliefs lies in a question as to just how extreme the views should
be in order that they be considered psychotic. I am more prepared
than you for the justice system to make such judgments about
parenting. One good idea would be to allow children to choose under
as many circumstances as possible (i.e. conscious and able to give
an opinion).
>Consider this: suppose that the Christian Scientists had enough political
>clout to pass a law banning medical care. Is there any substantive
>difference between their denying you the freedom to choose medical care
>and your denying them the freedom to reject it?
The fact that my views are rational and based on evidence? Of
course, your analogy *should* say denying medical care for my children.
Essentially, I would not live in a country that was so overrun by
such religious elements (just as I wouldn't live in Iran).
Ron
Al Thompson
|In article <7772.2...@pbs.uucp> btif...@pbs.uucp writes:
|>In article <7...@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, g...@robotics.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Erann Gat)
|ites:
|>> Actually, that is exactly what it means. It used to be the law of the land
|>> that students had to pray in the public schools. ....
|
|> It has never, ever been the law in this nation that children or
|>anyone else HAD TO pray, either in school or anywhere else. Children used
|>to be free to pray or not to pray; now they are only free not to pray.
|
|This is 100% false. The original poster was correct in that at one time,
|organized prayers were practiced in public schools. It may not have exactly
|been the law that students were *forced* to participate, but it might as well
|have been. Students who did not care to participate were subjected to almost
|complete ostracism and hostility from students and faculty alike. Kids have
|enough to worry about (like getting a good education) without having to deal
|with this.
I attended public schools in Illinois (Chicago, Northfield and Winnetka)
from 1946 to 1954. Never once in any of those schools did we have prayers
or even a time when we "could" pray. So, if they ever did require prayers
in Illinois the requirement had passed out of existence by the end of
WWII.
Russ Nelson
From: pie...@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
Date: 21 Apr 90 21:55:27 GMT
>This price of freedom should not be paid by children. There are people
>that beat their children because they believe that "spare the rod
>spoil the child". Should society allow this behavior in the name of
>the parents' freedom?
"Society" has no business interfering in the matter, provided
we are talking about loving, God-ordained discipline designed to
train up a child in the way that he should go, so that when he is
old he will not depart from it. Withholding the rod of discipline
because of the current society's warped views regarding the
supposed inherent goodness of man is possibly the worst type of
child abuse, and it's pretty clear from even a cursory look at the
ills of our present society what a lack of discipline leads to.
Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod will drive
it far from him.
I would like to take this moment to inform people that some Christians
(Quakers) believe in the inherent goodness of man. There are also
some fundamentalist Christians who believe that the "rod of
discipline" is a metaphor for the shepherd's staff.
Please do not use this asshole's words to condemn *all* Christians.
Oh, and by the way, you can discipline a child without punishment, and
without beating the child. Discipline != punishment.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Violence never solves problems, it just changes them into more subtle problems
Give them a fighting chance -- support the RKAB (right to keep and arm bears)
Dust In The Wind
Doug Linder's most recent article was pretty clearly written before my
apology in response to David Goldfarb's comment reached his machine, so
this response will elide most of what I said there.
Mostly, I want to explain this comment:
>
>(The rest of Doug's article was the standard Christianity bashing that he
> has posted nonstop since he first showed up on the net, and since he said
> nothing new there's no point in replying to it.)
Given that I said that in a public forum , I feel obliged to respond to
Doug's objection:
>
>Implying that you are somehow better than I when it comes to posting is
>senseless. You certainly aren't any better at writing or debate.
I was not referring to either your debating skills or your ability to form
sentences, nor was I claiming to be `better' at posting articles.
Rather, I was replying to the tone of this paragraph:
>
> So, how about it? Hey, Charley Wingate, do you send your kids to the
>doctor when they are sick? How strong is YOUR faith? Rodney Raymond
>Morrison? What's that? You DO send your kids to the doctor? What's the
>matter, isn't your faith strong enough? You DO think god is omnipotent,
>don't you?
The use of all upper-case words is often the Usenet equivalent of shouting;
and when the poster is disguising accusations behind rhetorical questions,
that usually indicates that no answers are needed -- because none will be
accepted. (Before you tell me I'm all wrong, notice that your questions
_assume_ what answers go in the slots. That is usually an indication that
the poster has his mind made up and closed tight.) In my experience, when a
thread has become this emotionally-charged, there is no point in continuing.
Reread that paragraph; if you were a theist would you bother to respond?
In general, I find both the content and literary style of your articles
rather limited. That I have seen, you have never talked about why you are
not a Buddhist, or a Hindu -- Christianity is the religion you don't believe
in. And, on the off chance that your most recent article was supposed to
convince me that I've misjudged you, let's take a look at what you wrote:
You frequently make claims to absolute truth, but you have presented no more
support than Jimmy Swaggart can provide for his beliefs. Your last article
was no different:
>
> You don't have any data on prayers because "doing nothing" == "praying"
Your articles usually reflect the belief that anyone who disagrees with you
is either an idiot or uneducated. Your last article was no different:
>
>However, there *are* some thiests about, so I'd better make myself very
>clear. I'll try to use small words. [...] I thought everyone would
>understand - that's what I get for overestimating the brains of fundies.
You have been making the same claims to Truth since your first article, and
you've never provided any evidence. You have been making the same insulting
asides since your first article, and they still add precisely nothing to the
presentation (though they do serve to detract from anything useful that you
might have to say).
As near as I remember, all of your articles after the first 2 weeks have
been virtually interchangeable. Even if there _was_ some new insight
from your keyboard, I sincerely doubt I would bother to wade through the
gratuitous slams and unsupported assertions in an effort to find it.
I suppose that you feel my perception of you is totally inaccurate -- in
which case, changing that opinion will be best accomplished by articles
which demonstrate its inaccuracy. A flaming response, however, will only
serve to demonstrate the correctness of the image you have thus far
presented.
kil...@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy
``No man who says "I'm as good as you" believes it.'' -- Screwtape
Keith Tookey
>Next door to you lives a Christian Scientist couple named, say Smith. They
>Ok. Let's see where we are here. The Smith's are in jail because you turned
>them in. Joey is dead as a direct result of the unnecessary medical
>treatment which you had a big part of forcing on him over the objections
>of his parents.
>I would hope that, unless you have a fanatic religious devotion to the
>laws of chance, you would be somewhat uncomfortable at this point. A
>I think it is a serious question to ask whether, as a general rule, a
>child's best interests are served by his/her parents or by prosecutors,
>judges and radical special interest groups bringing lawsuits.
A good, thoughtful, post, Cathy, thank you.
My comments:
Occasionally, someone is trapped by a malfunctioning seatbelt and cannot escape
a burning car, and thus dies. (This is rare; a state trooper friend of a friend
has never in his career had to unbuckle a corpse.)
This does not prevent me from requiring my baby boy to be buckled in,
because, you see, I DO believe in the laws of probability.
I would believe I had done the right thing even if my son died.
(I believe the mandatory seat belt laws are a parallel issue;
can the State force action to protect a child against the wishes of the parent?)
I argue that the state has the right to protect children from
clear and present danger (be it a christian scientist with menningitis or
a child getting the 'devil beat out of him' by a cult).
All it takes is mandatory reporting, followed by court action if necessary.
Christian Scientists in Great Britain and Canada live under a system where
medical care is mandated. Why can't US Christian Scientists do so?
Leaving the Christian Scientists alone for now, what of the person
who beats his child due to sincerely held beliefs?
Where do we draw the line?
Is it OK to beat your child if your minister tells you to?
How about a child who volunteers for a child sacrifice?
While there are several reasonable places to draw a line,
(I am not a slippery slope fanatic)
legal precedent says that freedom of belief is guaranteed,
but not freedom of practice.
I say that withholding medical care from children should not be a protected practice.
When the measles epidemic hit the Principia, (and it was not reported
until students with measles left campus for break)
it endangered all the children at Principia, and all children with whom
they associated.
Sympathetic to CHILD(Children's Healthcare Is a Legal Duty)
but speaking only for myself.
--
_ __ _____
/ / _/_ / /__) / /
/\^ _. ^ / /-. /\ / _ _ /_ _. . .
/ \_(/_/__/__/ / / \ / (_)_(_)_/ <_(/___\/
_/
Jon Taylor
... many, many things...
I hope you will forgive me for responding to them in pieces, as my
time is limited. I am impressed with the effort you made to use real
quotes and references.
> What is a "human right"? This must be answered before your assertion
> can be evaluated. The Founding Fathers recognized man as an eternal being
> whose rights are endowed by his Creator, and that temporal governments were
> obligated to uphold those eternal rights. If you mean that any authority
> which seeks to abridge such God-given rights is abusing power, you are right.
> Such is the case with our present government. If there is no God, and man is
> not eternal, we have no rights, only revokable privileges granted by
the state,
> which becomes god.
Your first question is a good one. I would say that it has never been
and will never be answered completely and absolutely. The Founding
Fathers DID believe in God, and used God as their basis for argument,
but this does not, alas, mean that the rights given by God were or are
obvious. The current government in Iran is the perfect counter-example:
they surely believe that God is on their side, and that they are sent by
Him to create a perfect society, but would you agree?
...referring to libertarianism:
> That is the present day view: I have a right to do whatever I want
> as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else (or infringe on their rights, which
> is construed to be their "right to do whatever they want"). Aside from the
> fact that it never did, does not now, and never will work, it is far, far
> removed from the original understanding of rights upon which this nation was
> founded.
I would argue that it has never REALLY been tried. We are probably as
close to it in this society as anyone ever has been, but we're still
miles away. Incidentally, I agree with your several mentions of the
problems and evils of the welfare state.
> (Remove God, and of course, I have just as much "right"
> to do anything I want as anybody; in fact, without God, who are you to
tell me
> I can't do something which hurts you if it pleases me and I'm big enough to
> get away with it? If there is no God, there are no rights, just the rule
> of the strongest -- THINK ABOUT IT before you blast me!)
You will be blasted by many others on this net, alas, but not by me.
I HAVE thought about this, and your question is again a very good one.
I have no certain answer to it, though I continue to work on it. Quite
honestly, I don't think it is answerable through pure logic, any more
than God can be proven or disproven with logic. Some elements of faith
are necessary, and I think those of us who reject your God have some
duty to try to replace it with a humanistic faith. I do not accept that
the only alternative is tyranny and brutality, even though that may have
been all that has been seen in history. You, perhaps, are awaiting the
apocalypse, but I am not, and I think we have the ability and power to
write the future as we see fit. The goal is to do it well.
You quote many intelligent Christians (Washington, Adams,
Solzhenitsyn, ML King) which, as I said before, I appreciate. I hope
the anti-Christians on this net took the time to read their words and
consider them.
I could not agree more with these particular quotes:
> "It is indeed a truth, which all the great apostles of freedom
> outside the nationalistic school have never tired of emphasizing,
> that freedom has never worked without deeply ingrained moral beliefs
> and that coercion can be reduced to a minimum only where individuals
> can be expected as a rule to conform voluntarily to certain
> principles."
> -- Friedrich Hayek
>
> "To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or
> happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical
> idea."
>
> -- James Madison
>
What I do not accept is that belief in a Christian God is necessary to
have a moral people.
> There wouldn't be such a flap over school prayer if only offically
> organized prayer were being repressed.
Perhaps, but I don't believe it. Some Christians DO want organized,
public prayer in the schools.
> The fact is, children and students
> (and teachers) in public schools are being harassed and persecuted by the
> authorities for such activities as: being seen with a Bible; wearing
T-shirts
> that say anything perceived as "Christian"; being caught praying silently on
> their own; meeting separately to pray and/or study the Bible, etc. Some
> legal cases have even involved school officials firing Christian teachers or
> harassing Christian students for meeting together off school property, after
> school hours, in their own homes, on their own time!!!!!
I'd be curious to hear some specific examples. You seem to be a very
scholarly person, so I hope you'll oblige us (or at least me, if you'd
prefer to use email) with them. If what you say is true (esp. the last
reference) I would have to agree that this is perversion of the concept
of religious freedom.
> "We are a Christian people, according to our motto. The right
> of religious freedom, demands acknowledgment, with reverence,
> and duty of obedience to the will of God."
>
> -- Supreme Court, 1952, Zorack vs. Clauson
This and your many other quotes from old Supreme Court decisions are
interesting, but I think you must agree that they are dated. Things DO
change. After all, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision (allowing Jim Crow
racist laws) was made in 1896 - do you think it is still applicable?
> "The statist notion that governmental power should supersede
> parental authority in all cases because some parents abuse and
> neglect children is repugnant to American tradition."
>
> -- Supreme Court of the
United States
I agree with this and your many other comments about the state taking
over the raising of children. As a libertarian, I am also disturbed by
the arrogating of authority by any collective group, of which the state
is the best example.
>
> A few years ago at a swimming pool I observed a pretty serious case
> of child abuse perpetrated by a LARGE woman who probably outweighed her
> 3-year-old son about 8 times.
...I'll abridge this story about a manipulative child and weak parent...
Again, I am in agreement with you that flabby, weak-kneed liberalism
is not a sufficient replacement for moral guidence. And I also agree
that there is much too much of this sort of thing in America today. (I
assure you, my own children will not EVER get away with anything like
this, if I can help it!) I would even go so far as to say that SOME of
the Christian parents I have seen in action do seem to be exemplary, and
worthy of emulation by anyone. But is it NECESSARY to be Christian to
be moral? I think not.
I thank you for a provocative and well-written piece. You will be
summarily flamed, gassed, drawn, and quartered by others, though I'm
sure your faith will see you through. I, at least, will continue to
read your postings with interest, as long as you refrain from trying to
convert me through the usual "witnessing". Intellectual argument is
always welcome.
Erann Gat
In article <7...@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, I wrote:
> Consider: according to strict Christian doctrine, if someone
> dies in a state of Grace they go to heaven ... It seems reasonable to conclude
> then that for me to kill someone while they are in a state of Grace is the
> greatest favor I can do them.
This was intended as an extreme example of the sort of idea some lunatic
might get into his head, not a serious statement about what a good
Christian should believe.
Erann Gat
g...@ai.jpl.nasa.gov
Jon Taylor
> > ... if we are to have religious freedom in this country
> > then we must ... occasionally accept ... the death of an
> > innocent child as the cost of that freedom.
> >
>
> a single person has replied to it.
Sorry - besides the fact that I don't happen to think 'flaming' people
is very productive, I happen to agree with you, and I suspect many
others here do too. Freedom definitely has its costs and Americans in
general expect a very large amount of it. We thus must also accept some
rather nasty side-effects, like allowing crazy people more leeway to do
horrible things.
An earlier posting by Mr. Tookey asked:
Christian Scientists in Great Britain and Canada live under a system where
medical care is mandated. Why can't US Christian Scientists do so?
The answer is that we expect greater personal freedom from government
interference than the Canadians and British do. They get certain
benefits from their lost freedom, like fewer murders and other horrors
that are endemic to this country. There are certainly many in this
country who would like to move in their direction - they just haven't
yet convinced the majority to go along.
Mark Meyer
>to be free to pray or not to pray; now they are only free not to pray.
Oh, come on. Children are still free to pray in school, and
many still do it (usually around exam time :-) )...
--
Mark Meyer USENET: {ut-sally!im4u,convex!smu,sun!texsun}!ti-csl!mmeyer
Texas Instruments, Inc. CSNET : mmeyer@TI-CSL
Every day, Jerry Junkins is grateful that I don't speak for TI.
"Your present is under the tree. It's the ticking one marked 'Open Me First.'"
Wayne Aiken
>In article <90114.2131...@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu> -me-
>|In article <7772.2...@pbs.uucp> btif...@pbs.uucp writes:
>|>to be free to pray or not to pray; now they are only free not to pray.
>|
>|organized prayers were practiced in public schools. It may not have exactly
>|been the law that students were *forced* to participate, but it might as well
>|have been. Students who did not care to participate were subjected to almost
>|complete ostracism and hostility from students and faculty alike. Kids have
>|enough to worry about (like getting a good education) without having to deal
>|with this.
>I attended public schools in Illinois (Chicago, Northfield and Winnetka)
>from 1946 to 1954. Never once in any of those schools did we have prayers
>or even a time when we "could" pray. So, if they ever did require prayers
>in Illinois the requirement had passed out of existence by the end of
>WWII.
Count yourself lucky. Although prayers in schools were widespread at one
time, the practice was inconsistent. Some places never did it; other regions
continue the practice to this day, even though it is now against the law.
As to not having time when a person "could" pray, there is ample time that a
person can pray; before & after school, during home-room period, recess,
between classes, etc. In fact, nobody can ever stop a person from saying a
silent prayer any time they want. That there is no *official* time set aside
for such practices in no way means that a person can't pray; it only means
that if they do so, they do it on their own.
Doug Linder
(Cathy Johnston) writes:
[ thought experiment, I turn in the Smiths next door because I know their
child is sick. When he gets to the hospital, it is discovered that surgery
is needed. When surgery is preformed, the problems has fixed itself and
Joey dies of post-surgery complications. ]
> Ok. Let's see where we are here. The Smith's are in jail because you turned
> them in. Joey is dead as a direct result of the unnecessary medical
> treatment which you had a big part of forcing on him over the objections
> of his parents.
>
> People die of complications of surgery all the time. People have
> unnecessary surgery all the time. It's not even all that uncommon for
> people to die of complications from unnecessary surgery (it's called
> malpractice.)
True, this happens. However, (I don't know the numbers, but) I'm fairly sure
that more people's lives are saved by surgery than are ended by it. I like to
play the odds in this kind of situation. It the same reason I wear a seatbelt.
Sure, the are cases when people die *because* they are wearing a seatbelt, but
many, many, many more cases wher people are only alive today because they *were*
wearing a seatbelt.
> I would hope that, unless you have a fanatic religious devotion to the
> laws of chance, you would be somewhat uncomfortable at this point.
I don't have a fanatical devotion to the laws of chance, but sometimes it's
the only objective way to choose the best of two alternatives. If you were
dying of an incurable disease, and they could give you two medicines which were
exactly the same, except one had a 51% recovery rate and one had a 49% recovery
rate, which one would you take?
> A child is dead, and as a result of actions taken against his parents' will.
> You and I accept these things as the risks of living in an imperfect world;
> Christian Scientists, as Charles Hedrick has pointed out, have a very
> different world view, and they *do*not* accept these risks. All those
> sayings about how "life is risky" and "nothing is sure" are scant comfort
> when a child is dead -- indeed, they sound a little trite..
Yes, maybe at the point which you describe these statements might sound a bit
trite, but I'm not convinced that the scenario you describe would occur very
often at all - for the child to miraculously "get well" on the way to the
hospital. In fact, I think that it would happen so infrequently as to be
statistically insignificant. If I were in the situation you describe above
(neighbor of xtain scientists [oxymoron] who had a very sick child) I still
*would* turn them in, though I wouldn't be very happy about doing it. It's not
like I would enjoy ratting on neighbors, but I think that it is obvious (to me
at least) that the child's interest should come first, and he/she has a much
better chance of recovery under proper medical care than under lip-service to
an imaginary being.
> I'm not claiming to have any answers. I'm just saying that I think your
> answer has some serious problems. Maybe I'm just objecting to you seeming
> so sure that the problem is so simple. Medical ethics are hard questions,
> even when dealing with people who agree with your values and world view.
I'm sorry, I didn't mean to seem so sure - I'm not entirely sure. See my
rationale in the above paragraph. Medical ethics certainly *are* hard
questions, and you'll get no disagreement from me on that point. I also should
have mentioned in my "thought experiment" that not only did I not think it
should be conducted, but that I was not really serious about using it as a
method to make legislation. the real point I was trying to make can be summed
up as "Do you really think that prayer is as effective in healing disease and
injuries as medcal science?" It was a rhetorical question, and the answer was:
no.
> I think it is a serious question to ask whether, as a general rule, a
> child's best interests are served by his/her parents or by prosecutors,
> judges and radical special interest groups bringing lawsuits.
It is a serious question, and casual interference should definitely be
avoided. I don't want Big Brother in my living room any more than you do.
however, there is a point at which a line must be drawn, the point at which
rationality gets replaed by absurdity, when the lives of children are at stake.
I group the xtain scientists [oxymoron] along with the old traveling medicine
shows. No one could really *prove* that they didn't work, since occaisionally
someone *did* get better, but on the whole everyone eventually realized that
not only were these imaginary remedies useless, but they could seriously harm
peopl, if by no other means than by giving people a false idea that they had
been somehow helped.
--
Douglas D. Linder lin...@merrimack.edu
Merrimack College, N. Andover, MA {uunet,wang,ulowell}!samsung!hubdub!linderd
v^v^v Atheism: Living life on your own two feet - not on your knees! v^v^v^
"By the cold and religious we were taken in hand -
shown how to feel good; and told to feel bad."
- Roger Waters, from The Final Cut (Pink Floyd)
Doug Linder
> Doug Linder's most recent article was pretty clearly written before my
> apology in response to David Goldfarb's comment reached his machine, so
> this response will elide most of what I said there.
Yes, it was written before your apology reached my machine. I have deleted
most of your posting here because I'd like to say that you're right, I did go
off a little bit and made some pretty broad statements. However, I think that
if you read through my unnecessary abusiveness, I still do have a few valid
points.
>> So, how about it? Hey, Charley Wingate, do you send your kids to the
>>doctor when they are sick? How strong is YOUR faith? Rodney Raymond
>>Morrison? What's that? You DO send your kids to the doctor? What's the
>>matter, isn't your faith strong enough? You DO think god is omnipotent,
>>don't you?
>
[ complaint about the tone of the paragraph ]
> Reread that paragraph; if you were a theist would you bother to respond?
I agree that I should have been more subdued here, and believe me, I hate it
when I let my temper get the better of me just as much as you do, because I
know that it gives people an entirely false impression that atheists are just
as evangelical as any theist. I'd like you all to know that I really am a
rational person, I just get carried away when I am frustrated, especially when
someone pans a position which I feel strongly about.
All that aside, let me ask for answer to my questions in a slightly less
inflammatory way: Theists (especially Chraley and rodney), do you take your
kids to the hospital when sick? If you do, why? Don't you think that implies
that you have a less-than-complete confidence in the power of god to heal your
child, or his inclination to do so? If god wants the child to die, you should
reason, than he will die no matter what I do, and if god wants the child to
live, then why bother taking him to the hospital?
> That I have seen, you have never talked about why you are not a Buddhist, or
> a Hindu -- Christianity is the religion you don't believe in.
No, that's not true - I don't believe in ANY religion, and that inclues
Hinduism (I don't consider buddhism a religion but a philosophy. Buddha
specifically told his followers not to worship him.) I don't talk about then
simply because I feel that my arguments apply to all religions, and the
Judeo/christian mythology is most prevalent where I live.
> You have been making the same claims to Truth since your first article, and
> you've never provided any evidence.
What evidence would you like? I don't recall making any claims to truth, at
least not with a capital T. I can say unequivocally that I have necver used a
capital T in truth in my life, unless I was beginning a sentence with it or
quoting someone else.
T_Rex
>In article <2633DA2...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca> wo...@maccs.dcss.mcmaster.ca (T_Rex) writes:
>>rights? Don't people come before dollars. Taxes get spent in alot
>>worse ways, !
>
>Without stating my position, I note that these arguments are not
>very compelling. Bad spending in one part of govt does not justify
>slightly better spending in other parts. "Don't people come before
>dollars" is actually wrong; inefficient govt spending kills people.
Well, I'm kinda taken aback by this. I certainly must admit to my mistake;
I shouln't have made such a silly statement about "taxes get spent....". I
believe, however, that my point regarding people vs. $ is being missed
here. The point I felt was important was that if people who wouldn't
otherwise receive medical got it from your tax dollars, then this is a
*good thing*. I know I'll get killed for this, but I cannot provide
medical service to sick people. I cannot afford the capital necessary
to provide medical facilities. If I care about other humans, then I
have to make an effort somehow. I see universal , gov't- sponsered
programs as one means to this end. Are there others? I don't know.
Noone ever mentions them , they just parade forth claims of rights
infringement, matters of efficiency, etc..As to the marked text above,
well, no shit!! For that matter, so does efficient gov't spending!
I guess I'm ranting here, and I'll pay for it in posts, but instead
of pointing out stupid mistakes on my part, can we get to the issues
at hand, ie, do you give a shit about others? ..how else can we ensure
that the degree to which quality medical care is available to more
than just those who can afford it is maximized? and so forth.
>-andy
Don't shoot me, I'm really a sensitive piano player!
Pete.
David Hammerslag
In article <19072.2...@merrimack.edu>, lin...@merrimack.edu (Doug
Linder) writes:
> I agree that I should have been more subdued here, and believe me, I
hate it
> when I let my temper get the better of me just as much as you do, because I
> know that it gives people an entirely false impression that atheists are just
> as evangelical as any theist. I'd like you all to know that I really am a
> rational person, I just get carried away when I am frustrated,
especially when
> someone pans a position which I feel strongly about.
An evangelical atheist?? That would be tricky! (insert many "smileys" here)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Hammerslag |A generous man will prosper; he who refreshes
ham...@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu |others will himself be refreshed. Pr 11:25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Nancy's Sweetie
Doug Linder has made some points which splinter the discussion into
different subthreads, but since I can't come up with a good subject line
I'll just leave the old one there.
Anyway, I'll reply to the topics in order of relevance (more or less).
Firstly, I am in a quandary about the `forced care' issue. I am loath to
interfere with freedom of religion, but I feel that freedom of practice
has to stop when the practice affects unwilling people. Overall, I think
small children have to default to `unwilling' unless it can be shown that
they have an understanding of the issues, and therefore that medical care
should be used over parental objections. What makes me uneasy about this
is that I dislike forcing my will on other people -- I feel as if this is
declaring the parents' religious beliefs invalid. I hesitate to use
majority rule against religions, because in the past that has led to
disasters.
Secondly, Doug re-asked `why do theists take children to doctors' and while
I think Charles Hedrick has given a thorough answer to this, let my try a
question that always comes to mind when I hear Doug's:
Why do theists eat food? Surely an omni* God can keep you
alive if you don't eat?
God has provided ways for us to take care of ourselves, and I presume that
was so we would use them. M*A*S*H fans may remember this exchange between
Father Mulcahey and Charles Emerson Winchester III:
FM: My prayers were answered!
CEW: I prefer to think it was my surgical skill which saved that boy.
FM: Ah, but that's what I prayed for.
(This may be misremembered, since my brain cells have been dying at a
furious rate all day -- Barry Manilow was on the radio in the dentist's
office, and I may never be the same...)
Moving along, Doug writes:
>I hate it when I let my temper get the better of me [...] because I know
>that it gives people an entirely false impression that atheists are just
>as evangelical as any theist.
And I think the atheist/theist dichotomy which appears here glosses over far
too many exeptions. I have pointed out that there are religious atheists,
and there are many non-evangelical theists. Judaism, for example, has no
use for evangelism -- indeed, though conversion of non-Jews is allowed, it
is usually discouraged. I will hardly challenge the assertion that there
are more evangelical theists, but there are atheists who try to convert
theists, and these people cannot simply be ignored if we are to be thorough
in our considerations.
Whether you are evangelical or not, well, let's just say that the line in
your .signature certainly _looks_ as if you are trying to sell me something.
As for your temper, well, I have one quite like that and I find that it
helps if I let articles sit for a day before replying to them. Also, if you
have a full belly it makes a difference. Really. Lao Tsu _knew_ what he
was talking about...
And finally we have truth claims:
>
> I don't recall making any claims to truth, at least not with a capital T.
>I can say unequivocally that I have necver used a capital T in truth in
>my life, unless I was beginning a sentence with it or quoting someone else.
Well, for example:
>
>You don't have any data on prayers because "doing nothing" == "praying"
While this may have been written when you weren't thinking clearly, it sure
_looks_ like a claim to Absolute Truth. (BTW, how could you have written
that sentence in any mood and not noticed a certain irony to it? Given the
start of the sentence (the first 7 words), the fact that you arrive at a
conclusion seems, shall we say, rather unscientific.)
kil...@cs.umd.edu Darren F. Provine ...uunet!mimsy!kilroy
"You said much less that you might, and no more than you should."
-- Treebeard
Brad Pierce
Ed Ipser
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable
rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty,
acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining
safety, hapiness, and privacy.
-- Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution of the State of California
In article <34...@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> pie...@lanai.cs.ucla.edu (Brad Pierce)
writes:
>People are more important than money.
Which is somehow supposed to lend moral credibility to stealing from Peter
to pay Paul? If money is so "unimportant" then why are the Liberals so
obsessed with devising new ways to extract it from their prey? What you
really mean to say is that the nth dollar a person has is somehow "less
important" than the n-1th dollar. But this, too is insufficient. You
have to argue that person A's need of the n-1th dollar is so much greater
than person B's nth dollar that person A has the right to TAKE that nth
dollar from person A.
Unfortunately, the fact is that even nations such as socialist-utopian
Sweden are realizing the damage such reasoning does to the economy and the
well-being of society as a whole. The very act of stealing from Peter
to pay Paul make both Peter and Paul, collectively, significantly poorer
in the long run.
Besides, the whole morality of confiscatory taxation is questionable even
setting aside the damage that it does to society as a whole. When someone
says that "people are more important than money" what they really mean
is that the government knows better than you how to dispose of the fruits
of your labor so shut up and pay your taxes.
"Democrats look at your paycheck the way
that Colonel Sanders looks at chickens."
-- Ronald Reagan
Cathy Johnston
>In article <9...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu>, ca...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu
> (Cathy Johnston) writes:
>
> [ thought experiment, I turn in the Smiths next door because I know their
> child is sick. When he gets to the hospital, it is discovered that
> surgery is needed. When surgery is preformed, the problems has fixed
> itself and Joey dies of post-surgery complications. ]
>
>sure that more people's lives are saved by surgery than are ended by it.
>I like to play the odds in this kind of situation.
The problem I'm having here is that *I* *don't* like to play the odds in
this kind of situation. You see, I don't believe in the laws of chance.
(Since we often have problems here with whether "don't believe" means
unbelief or disbelief, I'll say that my thoughts towards the laws of
chance are disbelief, not unbelief. I began disbelieving in the laws
of chance at approximately 9:11am Central Time on October 19, 1987.)
> I don't have a fanatical devotion to the laws of chance, but sometimes it's
>the only objective way to choose the best of two alternatives.
I'll grant you that it's objective, certainly, but I believe the laws of
chance to be unworthy of my trust as a basis for making choices.
> If you were dying
>of an incurable disease, and they could give you two medicines which were
>exactly the same, except one had a 51% recovery rate and one had a 49%
>recovery rate, which one would you take?
(shrug) Oh, one or the other. Some idealistic young doctor would probably
want me to take the first drug, and so I'd go along. I don't behave as if
I believe in the laws of chance now -- why should I change my behavior if
I'm sick?
> ...but I'm not convinced that the scenario you describe would occur very
>often at all - for the child to miraculously "get well" on the way to the
>hospital. In fact, I think that it would happen so infrequently as to be
>statistically insignificant.
"Statistically insignificant" can turn out to be *remarkably* significant!
(although quite infrequently, to be sure. :-) )
>If I were in the situation you describe above (neighbor
>of xtain scientists [oxymoron] who had a very sick child) I still *would*
>turn them in, though I wouldn't be very happy about doing it. It's not
>like I would enjoy ratting on neighbors, but I think that it is obvious (to me
>at least) that the child's interest should come first,
This is packed with good points, and I agree with all the ones I see...
> and he/she has a much
>better chance
I think this is irrelevant...
>of recovery under proper medical care than under lip-service to
>an imaginary being.
These aren't mutually exclusive, so I see no reason to choose between
them.
>I also should
>have mentioned in my "thought experiment" that not only did I not think it
>should be conducted, but that I was not really serious about using it as a
>method to make legislation.
To be honest, this *was* a pretty big concern of mine. I'm relieved that
you weren't thinking along the line of legislation...
> the real point I was trying to make can be summed
>up as "Do you really think that prayer is as effective in healing disease and
>injuries as medcal science?" It was a rhetorical question, and the answer
>was: no.
And my answer is: I don't care.
I don't care because 1) they are not mutually exclusive and I can use both,
and 2) I find your usage of the term "effective" to be irrelavant to my
life.
Hmmm... I've already said that I'd call the cops on the neighbors, too.
But I don't like to "play the odds." And I refuse to use the laws of
chance to justify ratting on them.
Resigned to the fact that I must live my life as a sample size of one...
--
Cathy Johnston ca...@gargoyle.uchicago.edu ca...@gargoyle.uchicago.bitnet
"Education is a strange good. Once people pay for it, they demand less of it"
Hal Lillywhite
>Let me make it clear that the overwhelming majority of Christian "fundamental-
>ists" (I despise that term, but...) disapprove of withholding heath care from
>minors or majors on such religious grounds. Christian Scientists, Mormons, and
>Unity School of Christianity members frequently are confused with us, but are
>not part of the "Bible-believing community of faith". Please don't make so
>blatant an error to confuse us with them.
A bit of clarification. I don't think Tom really intended to imply
that Mormons (LDS) withhold health care but his wording makes it seem
so. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon)
generally supports the idea of medical science and the power of God
working together to prevent and cure illness and injury. In fact
the church has in the past established hospitals when none were
available (they have since been sold since generally other hospitals
are now available). Today part of our missionary force consists of
doctors and nurses who teach principles of health in less developed
countries.
As for the "Bible-believing comunity of faith" we most certainly
accept the Bible although I am aware that those of your persuasion
don't agree with some of what we think it says (and of course we
also disagree with some of what you think it says - what else is
new?).
BTW, you don't like the term "fundamentalist" but what do you prefer
to be called?
Hal Lillywhite "When a man demands proof, you can be sure
ha...@vice.ICO.TEK.COM that proof is the last thing he really
wants."
Hugh Nibley
Jeffrey Schavland
>the tiered, privately-insured system I understand to be the norm in the States.
>( if I'm wrong about this, let me know ). Jeff, I think you're talking about
>two different issues here; the latter concerns the right of someone to
>refuse medical care, if I read you right ( this is a *real* can of worms!).
>The former concerns whether you, as a taxpayer, want to finance the medical
>care of someone else. Now, I'm concerned about where my tax $ go, 'cause up
>here we pay *alot* of 'em! I'd be upset if I was financing someone's nose job,
>or butt tuck, but I don't begrudge a penny spent on improving or maintaining
>someone's health, esp. someone who couldn't afford it otherwise! Jeff, do
>you *really* feel that this is an infringement on your rights? Don't people
>come before dollars. Taxes get spent in alot worse ways, !
>
>
>Pete.
For all of its problems, the US has the best medical care system in the world.
I have relatives in Norway, the socialist paradise where medical care is
"free," and medical care there is lousy. You wait forever to have surgery,
and when you do, good luck! Taxes are naturally quite high there, at least
twice as much as in the US. I don't mean to just pick on Norway; it's a great
country. I just wouldn't want to have surgery there. :-) This is not an
issue of people before dollars. I'm sure the government would love to
provide us with anything our hearts desire. The big thing in the US right
now is to socialize daycare. Great, Big Mother, in addittion to feeding,
teaching, housing, and providing medical care for our kids, can now take
care of them while we're at work! Doesn't anyone find this a little
frightening? James P. Hogan, the SF author, remarked at space convention
last year that the great thing about the Mafia, is that if you stay out of
drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. the won't bother you. Government, on
the other hand, will take EVERYBODY'S money to finance their (in some cases,
equally sinister) operations.
--
Jeffrey A. Schavland | schv...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu
University of Illinois | schv...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
at Urbana-Champaign | j-sch...@uiuc.edu
"If Communism goes, I've still got the U.S. House of Representatives."
-Robert Novak
Brian Westley (Merlyn LeRoy)
>In article <7...@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, g...@robotics.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>> that students had to pray in the public schools. ....
>anyone else HAD TO pray, either in school or anywhere else. Children used
>to be free to pray or not to pray; now they are only free not to pray.
This is exactly wrong. Children ARE free to pray (and the ACLU has fought
for their right to do so IF THEY CHOOSE). Many schools had school prayers
which were a voluntary as, say, gym class. That is, you did it, no questions
asked, and it would be very hard to get out of.
Try a test case. Have your kid say grace before eating lunch at school.
If he or she is stopped, contact the ACLU.
It's unbelievable how people misinterpret the school prayer decision.
It's simple. It's just like eating peanuts. You don't have to eat
peanuts if you don't want to. The state can't "encourage" peanut-eating
by having a special "peanut break". Students can eat peanuts if they want
to in their free time at school, or before lunch, or whatever.
---
Merlyn LeRoy
Robert Hellmann
So you've donated every penny made so far (above the bare minimum
to sustain your existence) to further the activities of various
relief agencies? No?
Do you own a car? Why not sell it, and use the proceeds to help
the poor? How about your album collection? Your stereo?
Maybe it's because humans give everything a value. And the value
you've given to other people's lives is pretty small. How small?
Well that pizza and beer you ate last weekend probably could feed
a third world child for a month. Go out every month and well,
you get the picture.
Before you make your next sweeping statement stop and think first!
P.S. I costs alot of money to educate someone. Why not drop out
now, and go help the poor?
robinson@van-bc
>
>For all of its problems, the US has the best medical care system in the world.
>I have relatives in Norway, the socialist paradise where medical care is
>"free," and medical care there is lousy. You wait forever to have surgery,
>and when you do, good luck!
On what basis do you make the claim that the US has the best medical system
in the world? It is without doubt the most expensive (as a percentage of
GNP), but I have never seen any figures which support the premise that
Americans are any healthier than others; and surely the health of the
citizenry is the bottom line in evaluating a health system (as well as the
cost). Indeed, as I previously stated the US has one of the highest infant
mortality rates of industrialized countries. So, if you are going to make
such claims, I would suggest that you supply some supporting evidence.
>Taxes are naturally quite high there, at least
>twice as much as in the US. I don't mean to just pick on Norway; it's a great
>country. I just wouldn't want to have surgery there. :-)
Norwegians pay for their health care by direct taxation. Americans pay for
it with lost wages (i.e. money that the employer would have used to pay
wages is instead used to pay for medical insurance). It all comes out in
the wash, and once again the bottom line is how much the country pays. I
don't know the exact figure, but I'd be willing to bet that Norway spends
*considerably* less as a percentage of GNP on health care than the US. And,
until we have some quantitative means of evaluating the quality of
Norwegian health care vs US health care, we are merely speculating.
However, we do know that 100% of Norwegians are covered by health insurance
whereas 30 to 37 million Americans must rely on charity.
J.B. Robinson
--
Jim Robinson
{uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!mdivax1!robinson
James Seidman
> I should've made myself more clear. Of course it's impossible for
>schools -- no matter what the law may say -- to stop kids from praying whenever
>and wherever they want, although MANY have tried to do just that. The big
>problem Christians continually run up against has less to do with what the
>law says than the incredibly expansive interpretations given to the law by
>many anti-Christian school boards. This varies from place to place, and I
>was careful not to lend the impression that such abuses occur EVERYWHERE.
>They are, however, widespread. The NEA, in particular, is committed to
>wiping all vestiges of Christianity from the schools (and not just the
>schools). Many, many, many lawsuits have been and are being fought over
>repressive action and downright persecution of Christians in public schools,
>and usually these are won by the Christians because what the schools are
>attempting to do DOES violate the law, even though the law itself is more
>restrictive than many Christians would like.
There may well be cases that I haven't heard about, but I don't know of any
examples where a school has demanded that a child not pray on campus.
Rather, essentially all of these cases which I know of refer to the right of
the child to *preach* on campus. I fully agree with this restriction. If I
wanted my kids to hear preaching, I would have sent them to church.
I know there have also been some cases regarding whether Christian student
groups should get school funding like the Math club, Football team, Filipino
Youth Organization, etc. This is an entirely different question, and is
largely independent of the question of prayer in schools. Granted, some of
these groups want to pray on campus, but that is not the point in the
debate. No one can stop these students from sitting on the grass and saying
a prayer or reading the bible. The question is whether a purely religious
group should receive school funding. If your problem is with this question,
say so, because it's a issue distinct from that of the right to pray.
--
Jim Seidman, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711. (714) 621-8000 x2026
"If I screw up, I just kill someone. But if you screw up, they suffer for
the rest of their lives."
- A remark made by a surgeon to a psychiatrist.
btif...@pbs.uucp
> btif...@pbs.uucp writes:
>>In article <7...@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, g...@robotics.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>>> Actually, that is exactly what it means. It used to be the law of the land
>>> that students had to pray in the public schools. ....
>> It has never, ever been the law in this nation that children or
>>anyone else HAD TO pray, either in school or anywhere else. Children used
>>to be free to pray or not to pray; now they are only free not to pray.
>
> This is exactly wrong. Children ARE free to pray (and the ACLU has fought
> for their right to do so IF THEY CHOOSE). Many schools had school prayers
> which were a voluntary as, say, gym class. That is, you did it, no questions
> asked, and it would be very hard to get out of.
> ---
> Merlyn LeRoy
Thant Tessman
> In article <1990Apr28.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu>
schv...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Schavland) writes:
> >
> >For all of its problems, the US has the best medical care system in
the world.
> >I have relatives in Norway, the socialist paradise where medical care is
> >"free," and medical care there is lousy. You wait forever to have surgery,
> >and when you do, good luck!
>
> On what basis do you make the claim that the US has the best medical system
> in the world? It is without doubt the most expensive (as a percentage of
> GNP), but I have never seen any figures which support the premise that
> Americans are any healthier than others; and surely the health of the
> citizenry is the bottom line in evaluating a health system (as well as the
> cost). Indeed, as I previously stated the US has one of the highest infant
> mortality rates of industrialized countries. So, if you are going to make
> such claims, I would suggest that you supply some supporting evidence.
Jeffrey Schavland should have said U.S. medical technology is the best
in the world, which is true. This is different than saying that we
have the best medical care system in the world.
However, the claim that the faults in the U.S. system are the result
of too much capitalism and not enough socialism is completely
uninformed and non-descriptive of the medical industry.
I have some information on this that I will dig up and post in a few
days when I have time (if there is still interest).
thant
P.S. I think I can also dig up some really juicy stuff about creation
of the A.M.A.
Matt Bartley
>In article <1990Apr28.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> schv...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Schavland) writes:
>>Taxes are naturally quite high there, at least
>>twice as much as in the US. I don't mean to just pick on Norway; it's a
>>great country. I just wouldn't want to have surgery there. :-)
>Norwegians pay for their health care by direct taxation. Americans pay for
>it with lost wages (i.e. money that the employer would have used to pay
>wages is instead used to pay for medical insurance). It all comes out in
>the wash, and once again the bottom line is how much the country pays. I
Well I can almost guarrantee you that using private insurance companies and
health care, the country spends a lot less money. Anything government gets
into is and will be extremely inefficient. Much of the tax money that would
go into a socialistic health care system would vaporize.
Example: education. I've read accountings that maybe as much as 10% of the
money put into state and federal education funding ever makes it to the
classroom. The rest vanishes in the midst of admisinstration and overhead.
Also ask yourself, how is it that we keep spending more and more and more and
more money on education and it gets worse and worse?
--
Internet: mdbo...@portia.stanford.edu Matt Bartley
Bitnet: mdbomber%por...@stanford.bitnet 73, KC6JRG
Kirk: "Spock! Where the hell's that power you promised?"
Spock: "One damn minute, Admiral." -- Star Trek IV : The Voyage Home
Andy Freeman
>The point I felt was important was that if people who wouldn't
>otherwise receive medical got it from your tax dollars, then this is a
>*good thing*.
How about supporting this a bit, instead of just repeating it? You're
saying that the money taken from me is better spent on medical care
than the way I would have spent it. (Since the money that goes
through the govt has higher overhead, I suspect that argument will boil
down to "you wouldn't spend it right".)
>I know I'll get killed for this, but I cannot provide medical service to
>sick people.
Let's assume that T_Rex has average means; if he can't pay for
adequate medical services for his share of the sick people, then the
average person can't. How is it that a group of average people can
take care of their share, despite the inefficiency of passing their
money through govt, when the individuals can't?
>If I care about other humans, then I have to make an effort somehow.
>I see universal , gov't-sponsered programs as one means to this end.
>Are there others? I don't know. Noone ever mentions them, they just
>parade forth claims of rights infringement, matters of efficiency, etc..
Hint: what is private charity? (It is mentioned quite often.)
Supposedly it is inadequate because people can't be trusted or won't
carry their fair share, but that argument too is merely repeated
rather than actually supported.
Let me suggest that even T_Rex doesn't believe that govt is the best
way to do good. I'll bet that he gives money to private charity
instead of donating the same amount as extra taxes (which can be
directed somewhat in the US). If so, either he does the wrong thing
(by his standards) when given the opportunity, so taxes are necessary
to coerce even a good person like him, or he actually likes the idea
of coercing people to do the wrong thing.
>I guess I'm ranting here, and I'll pay for it in posts, but instead
>of pointing out stupid mistakes on my part, can we get to the issues
>at hand, ie, do you give a shit about others?
It sure didn't take long to get to the traditional "I'm trying to do
good; the implementation doesn't matter", otherwise known as "the ends
justify the means", or rather "the intent justifies any means"
argument. Sorry, the means produce the end, no matter what the
intent, so pointing out stupid mistakes is a good thing, unless, of
course, the goal is to prove who's a better person based on who has
the best intentions, and I won't play that game.
Since T_Rex' argument boils down to "I care, therefore if you disagree
with my methods you don't", I quit. He wins. He's the better person,
right up there with Mother Teresa.
-andy
--
UUCP: {arpa gateways, sun, decwrl, uunet, rutgers}!neon.stanford.edu!andy
ARPA: an...@neon.stanford.edu
BELLNET: (415) 723-3088
Andy Freeman
>GNP), but I have never seen any figures which support the premise that
>Americans are any healthier than others; and surely the health of the
>citizenry is the bottom line in evaluating a health system (as well as the
>cost).
Unless one interprets health system so broadly as to make it
meaningless, it is obvious that the health system is not the sole
determinate of the health of the citizenry. (Some things that affect
health can't even be legislated short of eugenics.) Unless, of
course, one has an axe to grind or a pocket to fill.
>Indeed, as I previously stated the US has one of the highest infant
>mortality rates of industrialized countries. So, if you are going to
>make such claims, I would suggest that you supply some supporting
>evidence.
Yawn. Yes, there is an infant mortality problem in the inner cities,
however, it isn't clear that it is the major health problem there.
BTW - "Infant mortality" has several definitions; Robinson's tables
didn't bother to mention their apples/oranges comparison.
>However, we do know that 100% of Norwegians are covered by health insurance
>whereas 30 to 37 million Americans must rely on charity.
Yes, and Schavland points out that those 100% wait for necessary
medical care, while all but the uninsured Americans who don't get
charity don't wait at all. There's a basic conflict between the
notion that it is good to reduce the differences, even at the cost of
reducing the average, and the notion that the average is more
important. Since the advocates of the former insist on pissing from
their high moral ground, they win.
Jon Taylor
> Many, many, many lawsuits have been and are being fought over
> repressive action and downright persecution of Christians in public schools,
You've written this before, and I asked then, and will ask again, can
you give us an example or two, with some details? I've never heard of
such cases, and would be curious to find out about them, if they are
real and not a product of your imagination.
> and usually these are won by the Christians because what the schools are
> attempting to do DOES violate the law, even though the law itself is more
> restrictive than many Christians would like.
I'm glad they're winning, if what you claim is actually true: that
Christians are being deprived of the right to believe and practive their
religion on their own time.
Bruce Becker
|>It seems to me that this is the Canadian 'universality of health-care' vs
|>the tiered, privately-insured system I understand to be the norm in the States.
|>( if I'm wrong about this, let me know ). Jeff, I think you're talking about
|>two different issues here; the latter concerns the right of someone to
|>refuse medical care, if I read you right ( this is a *real* can of worms!).
|>The former concerns whether you, as a taxpayer, want to finance the medical
|>care of someone else. Now, I'm concerned about where my tax $ go, 'cause up
|>here we pay *alot* of 'em! I'd be upset if I was financing someone's nose job,
|>or butt tuck, but I don't begrudge a penny spent on improving or maintaining
|>someone's health, esp. someone who couldn't afford it otherwise! Jeff, do
|>you *really* feel that this is an infringement on your rights? Don't people
|>come before dollars. Taxes get spent in alot worse ways, !
|
This is an extremely misleading statement,
since it only applies to a portion of
American society. Since US medical care is
privately insured, hospitals are required
to ascertain the sources of payment for
medical services prior to their being
rendered. As a result, indigent emergency
patients are routinely turned away upon
arrival - they are penalized by that
system for the crime of poverty.
|I have relatives in Norway, the socialist paradise where medical care is
|"free," and medical care there is lousy. You wait forever to have surgery,
|and when you do, good luck! Taxes are naturally quite high there, at least
|twice as much as in the US. I don't mean to just pick on Norway; it's a great
|country. I just wouldn't want to have surgery there. :-)
I somehow doubt this is as serious a problem
as you state. In any case, here in Canada
the medical care is either free or else
insured at low cost by government agencies,
for basic medical services. I think that
I can safely state that over all classes of
people, the medical care system is the equal
of any in the world, at least in the case
of Ontario.
| This is not an
|issue of people before dollars. I'm sure the government would love to
|provide us with anything our hearts desire. The big thing in the US right
|now is to socialize daycare. Great, Big Mother, in addittion to feeding,
|teaching, housing, and providing medical care for our kids, can now take
|care of them while we're at work! Doesn't anyone find this a little
|frightening? James P. Hogan, the SF author, remarked at space convention
|last year that the great thing about the Mafia, is that if you stay out of
|drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. the won't bother you. Government, on
|the other hand, will take EVERYBODY'S money to finance their (in some cases,
|equally sinister) operations.
This is certainly an incredible mishmash of
unexamined opinions as far as I can tell.
It seems that a lot of Americans feel that
they are deeply imposed upon when asked to
share in maintaining the welfare of the
public as a whole - "Not my brother's keeper"
appears to be the watchword. I guess this
attitude is behind the US's great resistance
to accepting responsibilty for acid rain,
global warming, etc. The old proverb about
the pig and the acorns probably applies
here...
--
,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario
a /i/ Internet: b...@becker.UUCP, br...@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu
`\o\-e UUCP: ...!uunet!mnetor!becker!bdb
_< /_ "I still have my phil-os-o-phy" - Meredith Monk
James Seidman
>|For all of its problems, the US has the best medical care system in the world.
> This is an extremely misleading statement,
> since it only applies to a portion of
> American society. Since US medical care is
> privately insured, hospitals are required
> to ascertain the sources of payment for
> medical services prior to their being
> rendered. As a result, indigent emergency
> patients are routinely turned away upon
> arrival - they are penalized by that
> system for the crime of poverty.
I'm not quite sure where you're getting this information from. In many of
the metropolitan areas of the U.S.A. (notably Los Angeles and Chicago,
although there are others) hospitals are losing amazing amounts of money
from treating trauma patients who can't pay. Maternity wards are filled
with poverty-striken mothers from whom the hospitals will never get a dime.
For a hospital it's illegal to let someone die because just because they
can't pay for treatment. Also, when someone is unconscious, it's often
*impossible* to determine whether they can pay until after the services are
rendered.
(BTW, do you have to format your posts like that? It's incredible annoying
to read. I think most of us would prefer a left-justified 75-column or so
format.)
--
Jim Seidman, Harvey Mudd College, Claremont, CA 91711. (714) 621-8000 x2026
"All of us who attempt to heal the wounds of others will ourselves be wounded;
it is, after all, inherent in the relationship."
- From "Healing the Wounds" by David Hilfiker, M.D.
L.A. Moran
In a classic example of American chauvinism Andy Freeman (an...@Neon.Stanford.
edu) claims that the Health Care system in the USA is the best in the world.
His support for this claim seems to rely on anecdotal evidence supplied by
his Norwegian relatives.
Jim Robinson (mdivax1!robinson) asked the obvious question;
"It is without doubt the most expensive (as a percentage of
GNP), but I have never seen any figures which support the
premise that Americans are any healthier than others; and
surely the health of the citizenry is the bottom line in
evaluating a health system (as well as the cost).
Indeed, as I previously stated the US has one of the highest
infant mortality rates of industrialized countries. So, if
you are going to make such claims, I would suggest that you
supply some supporting evidence."
In response Andy Freeeman mumbled some excuses like "...it is obvious that the
health system is not the sole determinate of the health of the citizenry..."
and "...it isn't clear that (infant mortality) is the major health problem
(in the inner cities)...."
But his (Andy Freeman's) main argument seems to be;
"(100% of Norwegians) wait for necessary medical care, while all
but the uninsured Americans who don't get charity don't wait at
all. There's a basic conflict between the notion that it is good
to reduce the differences, even at the cost of reducing the average,
and the notion that the average is more important. Since the
advocates of the former insist on pissing from their high moral
ground, they win."
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Andy's facts are correct (they
certainly aren't!). He is making a choice between two hypothetical situations.
A: 100% of the society gets access to high quality medical care
but they may have to wait for surgery.
B: 85% of the society gets access to high quality medical care
because they can afford it, while 15% die because they can't
afford it.
Andy clearly prefers "B", but I can't for the life of me understand why.
Would you please clarify this for me, Andy? Since you used the term
"pissing from the high moral ground" do you assume that choosing "A" has
something to do with religion? Do you assume that "A" is more moral than
"B" (I prefer to use the word ethical, rather than moral)? Also, I think
that you should provide evidence for your claim that the American Health
Care system is the best in the world.
NB: Case "B", which is the American system, should include the fact that there
are often long waits for surgery even in the "best health care system in
the world". One should also take note of the fact that the poor (charity
cases) do not receive high quality medical care. It is also important to
remember that middle class families are often underinsured, and they can
rapidly run out of money when major illness strikes. The "best health care
system in the world" tends not to be very caring if you don't have the
money to pay for it.
In a recent editorial in Science (April 6, 1990) Daniel Koshland writes;
"...one in seven Americans has no health inssurance, and the burden
of costs is greatly increasing for those who have. It is time to
take a cool, scientific look at devising a more equitable system
and one that will not bankrupt the nation. There is little doubt
that a good national health insurance program would produce more
equitable health coverage...."
Koshland goes on to argue that complete health coverage is politically
impossible in the USA (due to attitudes such as those expressed by Andy
Freeman). Thus a limited plan is the only possibility even though not
all Americans will have access to the best care. However, the bottom line
is that;
"In an affluent society there is no gift as great as good health,
and most individuals will pay almost any price to get it.
Unfortunately, some individuals cannot afford the basics of what
an affluent society should be willing to provide."
Some countries, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, assume that good
health care is the responsibility of the society as a whole and that
individuals should not be denied access simply because they do not have
enough money. In these cases the affluent society provides the gift of
good health to its citizens. I doubt that you would find many *individuals*
in Canada or the United Kingdom who would trade their system for the
American one - they believe that they have a better system.
-Larry Moran
Bradley L. Richards
>
>|I have relatives in Norway, the socialist paradise where medical care is
>|"free," and medical care there is lousy. You wait forever to have surgery,
>
I recall reading an article a few weeks ago described healthcare in various
countries. In at least two countries with socialized medicine (England and
Norway?) it is normal to wait 6 to 10 months for elective surgery (i.e.
surgery which is necessary, but is not treating a life-threatening condition).
In my book, that's pretty bad....
>|This is not an
>|issue of people before dollars. I'm sure the government would love to
>|provide us with anything our hearts desire.
>
> It seems that a lot of Americans feel that
> they are deeply imposed upon when asked to
> share in maintaining the welfare of the
> public as a whole - "Not my brother's keeper"
Exactly true! And many of us think that's exactly how it should be. Every
individual is responsible for his or her own life. If I choose to be
charitable and help someone, that's my decision--but for the government
to take my money and redistribute it is a crime. Robin Hood was a criminal,
however wretched the Sheriff was....
> I guess this
> attitude is behind the US's great resistance
> to accepting responsibilty for acid rain,
> global warming, etc.
No, that's a very different matter. I have every right to swing my arm, but
when it intersects your nose I've gone too far.
> ,u, Bruce Becker Toronto, Ontario
Bradley
Brad Pierce
> BUT - does this debate belong in an 'atheism' discussion group?
Many Christians claim that their religion is based on charity and that
it would be better if we went back to the good old days when churches,
not the government, took care of the poor and the sick. In these good
old days, churches are alleged to have distributed resources more
efficiently than is now done by the government.
Do atheists feel any duty to be charitable or to achieve social
justice, or are such concerns orthogonal to a theist/atheist debate? I
believe that prompt access to quality health care, including
preventative care, is a human right. Many Christians say that providing
health care to the poor is up to private charity and that it would be
criminal for society to force them to pay for someone else's health
care. What do atheists think?
What do atheists think about members of some religions being allowed to
do alternative national service in time of war? Are moral atheists
allowed similar opportunity to refrain from committing murder?
Is the only thread that's relevant to an atheist newsgroup the endless
debate between theists and nontheists? Is that really all that being an
atheist means, i.e., we don't believe in the supernatural? The
selfevident proposition that belief in the supernatural is a product of
societal conditioning and wishful thinking is hardly the basis for a
newsgroup, let alone a philosophy, IMHO.
-- Brad
btif...@pbs.uucp
In article <70...@paperboy.OSF.ORG>, dated 25 Apr 90 17:30:28 GMT, which
unfortunately has since been automatically flushed from our system,
j...@osf.org (Jon Taylor) writes:
> Your first question is a good one. I would say that it has never been
>and will never be answered completely and absolutely. The Founding
>Fathers DID believe in God, and used God as their basis for argument,
>but this does not, alas, mean that the rights given by God were or are
>obvious. The current government in Iran is the perfect counter-example:
>they surely believe that God is on their side, and that they are sent by
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Him to create a perfect society, but would you agree?
No. For the Founding Fathers, Biblical morality and the God
of the Bible were foregone conclusions. Nobody who had anything to do with
the founding of this nation would even have remotely considered any other
basis for unalienable rights. Is is doubtful that more than a few people
in America had ever heard the name "Allah", much less "Shiva", "Vishnu",
"Krishna", or "Buddha". It didn't matter: Almost everyone subscribed to
Christian morals found in the Bible, and most of these embraced Christianity
personally. The fundamental rights they named were derived from the Bible,
largely from the Old Testament. The Bill of Rights came from Baptist
ministers in Virginia via James Madison. You would have drawn at best a
blank stare from folks 200 years ago with references to any other God than
the God of the Bible. The Founding Fathers did not "use God" (I know you
didn't mean that to sound bad) as a basis for argument. They did not think in
terms of God being on their side so much as making sure they were in His side.
They merely stated what was already true. They believed certain unalienable
rights are from God and transcend temporal human institutions of government;
that's why governments which attempt to destroy such rights could be thrown
off, as they violated a Higher Authority, a Higher Government, as it were.
And when anyone said "God", there was no question as to Whom was meant: there
is only One God, and His Name is the only one (Shema Yisrael, Adonai Elohenu,
Adonai Echad! See Deuteronomy 6:4).
>> (Remove God, and of course, I have just as much "right"
>> to do anything I want as anybody; in fact, without God, who are you to
>>tell me
>> I can't do something which hurts you if it pleases me and I'm big enough to
>> get away with it? If there is no God, there are no rights, just the rule
>> of the strongest -- THINK ABOUT IT before you blast me!)
> You will be blasted by many others on this net, alas, but not by me.
I haven't been blasted nearly as badly as I expected. I don't know
whether that's good or bad ... (maybe no one is paying attention) ...
> I HAVE thought about this, and your question is again a very good one.
> I have no certain answer to it, though I continue to work on it. Quite
>honestly, I don't think it is answerable through pure logic, any more
>than God can be proven or disproven with logic. Some elements of faith
>are necessary, and I think those of us who reject your God have some
>duty to try to replace it with a humanistic faith. I do not accept that
>the only alternative is tyranny and brutality, even though that may have
>been all that has been seen in history.
Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Of
course, today the social engineers are trying to rewrite history, to write
Christianity and Judaism out and their own convenient inventions in (e.g.,
the Founding Fathers were mainly Deists who got many of their ideas from
the so-called Enlightenment, or Thomas Jefferson thought religion and the
church should have no influence on governemnt or society [actually, he was
in favor of using government funds to subsidize Christian missionary work!],
or that the Constitution requires a "wall of separation between the church
and the state"). They cannot realize their goals as long as people know
the truth about their history.
> .... and I think we have the ability and power to
>write the future as we see fit. The goal is to do it well.
It's a noble aspiration, but it will not work without God, like
George Washington said, for reasons stated below.
> You quote many intelligent Christians (Washington, Adams,
>Solzhenitsyn, ML King) which, as I said before, I appreciate. I hope
>the anti-Christians on this net took the time to read their words and
>consider them.
I do, too; and there's PLENTY more where those came from!
> What I do not accept is that belief in a Christian God is necessary to
>have a moral people.
Here is where our fundamental disagreement is. There are basically
two views of man: (1) as fallen, sinful, in need of God's redemption, and
(2) as basically good, perfectable. You spoke of replacing faith in God
with a "humanistic faith", a faith in humanity. That is, of course, the
only alternative: faith in a higher God, or faith in ourselves as god(s).
Your statement implies that man is good, and can be his own savior (If we
could just get our act together! Don't hold your breath ...). The Founding
Fathers recognized that man is prone to evil, and that's why they spoke of
the necessity of religion (by which they ALWAYS meant Christianity; to them
there was nothing else, as is abundantly clear in their writings and lives),
morality, and belief in God [again, let me remind folks that this was
unequivocally the God of the Bible, not some mystical New Age aberration]
to constrain him. They realized that if this were removed, the framework
of laws and government would never be able to prevent the resulting chaos
and downfall of the nation. All you have to do to see they were right is
hang around a while.
If we cannot agree on the sinful nature of man (if there's no God,
there's no Law, and no violation; or at least it is not imputed), but
rather seek to blame man's problems on SYSTEMS [i.e., make them external
rather than internal], we will just have to agree to disagree. (But consider
this: if there is no God, there is no such thing as right and wrong.)
In fact, this is the one point that separates Judeo-Christian belief from
everything else. When you boil it all down, there are only two world
views (different flavors, yes, but only two kinds).
> Perhaps, but I don't believe it. Some Christians DO want organized,
>public prayer in the schools.
That is true, but I'm not one of them. For one thing, why would I
want a non-Christian leading my children in prayer? And it would be somewhat
hypocritical for non-Christians to feel pressured to pray. The Lord isn't
looking for forced confessions, but for people who genuinely love Him. Of
course, I disagree with schooling to begin with. My children (four of them)
are too precious a treasure to entrust to the schools, especially the state
schools.
>> The fact is, children and students
>> (and teachers) in public schools are being harassed and persecuted ...
> I'd be curious to hear some specific examples. You seem to be a very
>scholarly person, so I hope you'll oblige us (or at least me, if you'd
>prefer to use email) with them. If what you say is true (esp. the last
>reference) I would have to agree that this is perversion of the concept
>of religious freedom.
You appear to be sincerely interested, so I'd be happy to oblige.
Unfortunately, my time is quite limited, and May is going to be VERY busy for
me, so it will be June at the earliest before I can turn my attention to
digging up some examples. If you don't mind waiting, I'll keep a copy of
this around to refer back to and try to attend to it then.
>> "We are a Christian people, according to our motto. The right
>> of religious freedom, demands acknowledgment, with reverence,
>> and duty of obedience to the will of God."
>>
>> -- Supreme Court, 1952, Zorack vs. Clauson
> This and your many other quotes from old Supreme Court decisions are
>interesting, but I think you must agree that they are dated. Things DO
>change. After all, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision (allowing Jim Crow
>racist laws) was made in 1896 - do you think it is still applicable?
The Bible is "dated", too, in the sense that it's been around quite
a while, but truth is truth. Of course, Supreme Court opinions aren't
guaranteed to be the truth; today they are almost guaranteed not to be.
In the strictest sense, America (the United States) never was a completely
Christian nation, but the great freedom it enjoyed [past tense] was a result
and natural consequence of Christian faith. The old "devil's compromise"
-- slavery -- was even weakening under its influence, and probably would've
died out on its own had not the States' Rights issue forced an earlier and
more tragic resolution.
In any case, it only makes sense to obey the Creator who gave you
your rights. (If He's not there, we're back to square one again: no God
= no rights.) It's pretty difficult to derive unalienable rights from
ourselves! ("Impossible" is more like it!) They have to come from a Higher
Authority, or they simply are not unalienable rights. Each level of authority
can grant rights to those who are subject to that authority, which rights
govern the relationships of those subjects to each other. Only the grantor
can revoke the rights it has granted. Think about what that means when
you consider the existence of an unchanging God who is the highest authority;
then think about what it would mean if there were no God, and the changeable
state fills the vacuum. Now consider that government -- originally established
to protect the God-given rights of individual liberty our Founding Fathers
were willing to spill their blood to secure, provide for defense, and punish
evil -- inexorably moves from its original role to that of god (the people
having forsaken the true God), replacing the benevolent Creator with its own
purposes, which mainly consist in consolidating power and protecting itself
against the liberty of the individual it was supposed to exist for in the
first place. We have the government we deserve.
If man is an eternal being and God's creature, he outlives the state
and his eternal rights supersede state authority. If it all ends when you
kick the bucket, what's the difference? Where is your value? The state
usually outlives you, so its supposed interests supersede yours. You're just
a creature of the state, and the state has every right to run your life as it
pleases. If you protest that you are not a creature of the state, why aren't
you? What gives you the right? Where do you derive your value? Who cares??
Just because you claim certain rights, that doesn't make it so. Rights are
conferred from above, not grabbed from below.
> Again, I am in agreement with you that flabby, weak-kneed liberalism
>is not a sufficient replacement for moral guidence. And I also agree
>that there is much too much of this sort of thing in America today. (I
>assure you, my own children will not EVER get away with anything like
>this, if I can help it!) I would even go so far as to say that SOME of
>the Christian parents I have seen in action do seem to be exemplary, and
>worthy of emulation by anyone. But is it NECESSARY to be Christian to
>be moral? I think not.
I guess that depends on the definition of "moral". To the
Founding Fathers there was only one (1) moral code: the Bible. If
there's no God, that standard isn't worth squat. Do whatever is right in
your own eyes. (I do see your point: but the Bible makes it clear that even
if we don't acknowledge God our conscience bears witness against us, either
approving or condemning us. The inate knowledge of good and evil is there,
from God. You could act in a moral manner without being a Christian
because you have a God-given sense of what is right. Of course, if one
consistently violates his conscience, it will become "seared", losing
the ability to distinguish right and wrong.)
> I thank you for a provocative and well-written piece. You will be
>summarily flamed, gassed, drawn, and quartered by others, though I'm
>sure your faith will see you through. I, at least, will continue to
>read your postings with interest, as long as you refrain from trying to
>convert me through the usual "witnessing". Intellectual argument is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>always welcome.
Of course I desire that all men be saved, in the Biblical sense of
that word (not necessarily the American sense), referring to the classical Greek
"sozo" and "soteria". But the choice is up to the individual.
btif...@pbs.uucp
> In article <7967.2...@pbs.uucp>, btif...@pbs.uucp writes:
>> Many, many, many lawsuits have been and are being fought over
>> repressive action and downright persecution of Christians in public schools,
>
> You've written this before, and I asked then, and will ask again, can
> you give us an example or two, with some details? I've never heard of
> such cases, and would be curious to find out about them, if they are
> real and not a product of your imagination.
I will get you some examples, either on the net or mailed, when I
can. I will be too tied up in May to get to it. June will be the earliest
I can respond.
You can mail me a US Snail address if you'd rather receive some examples
that way (I could probably give you much more in depth information that way).
Jon Taylor
lam...@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (L.A. Moran) writes:
... a very long response to earlier postings on medical care delivery ...
This is all very interesting, and I myself have strong opinions on it.
Dave Jones
> In article <7...@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov>, g...@robotics.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Erann Gat) writes:
>>
>> Actually, that is exactly what it means. It used to be the law of the land
>> that students had to pray in the public schools. ....
>
> It has never, ever been the law in this nation that children or
> anyone else HAD TO pray, either in school or anywhere else. Children used
> to be free to pray or not to pray; now they are only free not to pray.
Well, you guys are hitting all around it, but I'm not sure you are
getting any closer. Here's the real deal:
I can say from experience that in at least one public school in
Huntsville, Texas, children had to pray. Today, children are free to
pray or not to pray. However, the school itself may not conduct prayer
services or schedule time for prayer. If students want to pray together
privately in their free time, of course that is their own business.
The distinction is whether or not the state sanctions or promotes the
activity. Read the first amendment and fourteenth amendments to the
constitution. Those should clear things up. The first amendment says that
the U.S. government stays out of religion, and the fourteenth says that
what goes for the federal government goes for the states -- and that
includes state school districts. Hence, the school may not promote
prayer or restrict it. Simple enough?
I only wish that the Founding Fathers had had the foresight to write an
eleventh amendment keeping the government out of education!
Dave Jones
> There is perhaps
> an argument to be made that [Christian Scientists] do not have the right
> to be irrational with their children ...
The argument is that they do not have the right to abuse their children
physically. That is the only argument beging advanced.
c...@dragon.uucp
> In article <1990Apr28.1...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> schv...@pequod.cso.uiuc.edu (Jeffrey Schavland) writes:
>>
>>For all of its problems, the US has the best medical care system in the world.
>>I have relatives in Norway, the socialist paradise where medical care is
>>"free," and medical care there is lousy. You wait forever to have surgery,
>>and when you do, good luck!
> Norwegians pay for their health care by direct taxation. Americans pay for
> it with lost wages (i.e. money that the employer would have used to pay
> wages is instead used to pay for medical insurance). It all comes out in
> the wash, and once again the bottom line is how much the country pays. I
> don't know the exact figure, but I'd be willing to bet that Norway spends
> *considerably* less as a percentage of GNP on health care than the US. And,
> until we have some quantitative means of evaluating the quality of
> Norwegian health care vs US health care, we are merely speculating.
> However, we do know that 100% of Norwegians are covered by health insurance
> whereas 30 to 37 million Americans must rely on charity.
What's wrong with charity? I'd rather donate my money to charities I like
than have my government give money to inefficient hospitals I'm not
particularly fond of. 100% of Norwegians are covered by health insurance;
presumably, this percentage includes those Norwegians who do not work, e.g., do
not contribute to the national health insurance fund through taxes. What's
that called? Could it be charity?
> J.B. Robinson
> --
> Jim Robinson
> {uunet,ubc-cs}!van-bc!mdivax1!robinson
--
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oo oo oo oo oooooo oo ooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo
o oooooo oo oo ooo oo oo oo oo o ooo oooooooo ooooooo o oooo
oo ooo oo o oo oo oo oo oo oo ooooooo oooooooo oooooo ooo oooo
ooo ooo ooooo ooo oo o oo o oo ooo o oooooo oooo ooo oooo oooo oooo
o ooo ooooo ooo oo oooo oo oooo oooooo oooo oooo o ooooo oooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo ooooo ooooo oooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo ooooo ooo ooo oooo
ooo oooo oooooo ooooooooooooooooooo oooooooo ooooo oo oooo
oo ooo oooo ooooooooooo ooo oooooooooooooooooooo ooooooo oooo
oo ooo oooo oooooooo o ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooo
ooo o ooooo ooooooooooo ooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooo ooooo ooooooooooo ooo oooo oo oo oooooo oo ooo oo ooo ooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo ooooo oooooo oo oo oooooo ooo ooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo ooo oo ooo oo ooo ooo ooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oo ooo ooooo o oo o oo ooooo ooo ooo ooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooo oo oooo oo oo ooo ooo ooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooo ooo oo ooo ooo ooo oooo ooo ooo ooo oo
ooo oooooo oo oo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooooooo o ooo ooooo ooooo ooooooo ooo oo
ooo oooooo oo oooo ooo oooo oo oo ooooo ooooo oooo ooo
ooo oooooo oo oo ooo ooo ooooooo ooooooo ooo o ooooo ooooo ooooooo oo ooo
ooo ooo oo oo oooo oo ooooooo ooo oooo ooooo ooooo ooo ooo oo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Mark Crispin
>Do atheists feel any duty to be charitable or to achieve social
>justice, or are such concerns orthogonal to a theist/atheist debate?
Judging by my own charitable contributions (I just added up last years
on April 15...) I would say that at least some Atheists are
charitable, in fact quite generous.
And no, American Atheists was not the primary recipient of my
donations.
_____ | ____ ___|___ /__ Mark Crispin Atheist & Proud
_|_|_ -|- || __|__ / / 6158 Lariat Loop NE R90/6 pilot
|_|_|_| |\-++- |===| / / Bainbridge Island, WA "Gaijin! Gaijin!"
--|-- /| |||| |___| /\ USA 98110-2098 "Gaijin ha doko ka?"
/|\ | |/\| _______ / \ +1 (206) 842-2385 "Niichan ha gaijin."
/ | \ | |__| / \ / \ m...@CAC.Washington.EDU "Chigau. Gaijin ja nai.
kisha no kisha ga kisha de kisha-shita Omae ha gaijin darou."
sumomo mo momo, momo mo momo, momo ni mo iroiro aru "Iie, boku ha nihonjin."
uraniwa ni wa niwa, niwa ni wa niwa niwatori ga iru "Souka. Yappari gaijin!"
btif...@pbs.uucp
I came across the following bit of text in the book "God and
Government", by Gary DeMar, which I thought might be interesting in light
of the recent discussion on rights and authority under "Fundy juries":
==============================================================================
.. There are different forms and functions of governments performing
specified governing tasks, from the individual to the state. ... The
creature has no authority or power to dictate or to establish the
requirements of civil government. This responsibility belongs to the One
who established the realm of civil government; therefore, its authority
should not extend beyond the requirements set by God. This means that the
state is not to operate in the areas of the family, school, or Church if
the Bible makes no provision for the civil government's power and
authority in these areas.
Because of a lack of understanding and sound teaching many people are not
aware of the purpose and function of civil government's authority. Many
people assume that the national government has absolute authority because
it claims the authority for itself. The claim of authority does not
validate the claim. No government is autonomous, a law unto itself. This
is as true for the state as it is for the family, school, and Church.
All authority and its limitations are delegated. No one government can
claim its area of governmental authority as ultimate. Neither can any one
governmental authority validate or invalidate another legitimate
governmental authority. God is the only ultimate authority. He
determines the proper function of any legitimate authority structure.
Moreover, He establishes the limitations of these same governing
authorities. If any authority sets itself up as the absolute authority,
it has replaced the ultimate authority of God. The Apostle Paul has
stated it clearly: "There is no authority except from God, and those
which exist are established by God" (Romans 13:1). "This is a very
comprehensive proposition. All authority is of God. No man has any
rightful power over other men, which is not derived from God. All human
power is delegated and ministerial. This is true of parents, of
magistrates, and of church officers" (Charles Hodge, "A Commentary on
Romans", p. 406).
In the area of civil government, it is crucial to understand the question
of the source and function of governmental authority. The authority of
any system of thought is the god of that system. If national government
establishes the will of the people, an elected elite, a law court, or an
individual as the ultimate authority, that is the nation's god. If the
source of authority is the voice of the people, then the people are the
gods of that nation (vox populi vox Dei -- "The voice of the people is the
voice of God"). If a nation's source of authority is a court, then the
court has established itself as that nation's god. If there is no
authority beyond man, then man has become god. When a nation chooses its
authority, it has chosen its god.
Too often, however, people decide who they want to be their authority
rather than acknowledge the absolute authority of God. But in rejecting
the one authority, they accept another authority. Two choices are set
before a nation. Either God is the ultimate authority or man is. "No man
can escape the problem of authority. Every man will consciously or
unconsciously appeal to some authority as basic and ultimate to life.
Most authorities revered by men today are human authorities: the
individual, the elite thinkers and planners, science, reason, or the
state, these are humanistic authorities" (R.J. Rushdooney, "Law and
Liberty", p. 32). The sad thing is that people choose these authorities
to govern them without ever realizing that when man is set up as the
ultimate authority tyranny soon follows. The people choose such despotic
authorities because they believe those who govern will abundantly supply
them with their desires. The unrestrained growth of the federal
government in our day is partly the result of citizens' desires and
expectations. Harold O.J. Brown has said it well:
Unless we control our appetites, we cannot control our government.
We certainly cannot expect it to limit itself, because it senses our
appetites far more strongly than it is persuaded by our claims that
we are tired of bureaucracy, taxes, and government interference. If
the ultimate goal of government is to "do everything and change
everything", really an infinite challenge, then it will require an
infinite effort -- in fact, infinite taxes, infinite paperwork, and
infinite interference: infinite in the sense that there will be no
limit to them, no place at which people will say, "This is clearly
all that we want or need", until the limits of exhaustion are
reached. INFINITE GOALS MEAN INFINITE CONTROLS. And infinite
controls mean zero freedom. ("The Reconstruction of the Republic",
p. 87)
If citizens do not become aware of the intended biblical function of civil
government, two things will happen. First, individuals, families,
churches, and schools will lay aside their God-ordained responsibilities.
The result will be that the civil government with its ever-growing
bureaucracy will take on the responsibilities reserved for the citizens at
the expense of their freedoms. Second, those who function in the realm of
civil government will tyrannize and exploit the governed by controlling
their lives with laws never meant to be used by the civil authorities.
If we are to define the limits of civil government, the Word of God must
be our source. The purpose, function, and authority of civil government
are clearly developed in the pages of Scripture. No individual or group
of individuals is at liberty to change the limits within which civil
governments should rule.
Jon Taylor
Pierce) writes:
>
> Do atheists feel any duty to be charitable or to achieve social
> justice, or are such concerns orthogonal to a theist/atheist debate? I
> believe that prompt access to quality health care, including
> preventative care, is a human right. Many Christians say that providing
> health care to the poor is up to private charity and that it would be
> criminal for society to force them to pay for someone else's health
> care. What do atheists think?
From what I've seen in this news group so far, libertarianism (the
belief that people should, to the largest extent possible, take care of
themselves and leave others alone) is quite prevalent among
self-professed atheists. The libertarian position, in general, is
opposed to the statement that 'quality health care is a human right'. I
don't think I'm alone here in my belief that rights should be carefully
defined, and kept to intangibles like 'the right to speak one's mind
without persecution' or 'the right to assemble with others for any
peaceful purpose at any time'. Things like welfare-state benefits (to
which I am not absolutely opposed - I'm a mild libertarian) should be,
in my opinion, kept clearly in the realm of privileges conferred by a
generous society.
> What do atheists think about members of some religions being allowed to
> do alternative national service in time of war? Are moral atheists
> allowed similar opportunity to refrain from committing murder?
Seems to me that if we allow conscientious objection at all, we have
to trust the objector's own claims, theistic or otherwise.
> Is the only thread that's relevant to an atheist newsgroup the endless
> debate between theists and nontheists? Is that really all that being an
> atheist means, i.e., we don't believe in the supernatural?
Yes, I'd say it is. I've tried to start up some discussion about the
nature of morality without supernatural basis - perhaps you're right,
this is just another path into that discussion.
> The
> selfevident proposition that belief in the supernatural is a product of
> societal conditioning and wishful thinking is hardly the basis for a
> newsgroup, let alone a philosophy, IMHO.
>
Obviously, from the discussions going on here, it is not self-evident
to everyone. Many people either don't accept the proposition at all, or
they feel it should be considered and weighed against evidence like any
other proposition.
Jon Taylor
In article <8058.2...@pbs.uucp>, btif...@pbs.uucp writes:
>
> ... in answer to my question:
>
> The current government in Iran is the perfect counter-example:
> they surely believe that God is on their side, and that they are sent by
>
>
But you never really answered my question. How am I, as a nonbeliever,
supposed to distinguish between your God and the God of Khomeini? You
quote Deuteronomy, but a Moslem could quote something or other from the
Koran. Your original point was that God is the only basis for moral
government; when I look at Iran, I find that proposition very hard to accept.
>
> Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Of course. But the question here is, WHAT is the lesson? Since most
of what is called Modern History (since the Renaissance) has seen Europe
run by Christians, along with countless associated brutalities, I can
hardly say that history PROVES Christian government to be moral. The
lesson I see is that the general movement away from dogma, and towards
open-mindedness, has been a good one. Not that I feel we've achieved
heaven on earth, but I think we're headed in a positive direction. Or
would you rather live in the pious, church-dominated middle ages?
> Here is where our fundamental disagreement is. There are basically
> two views of man: (1) as fallen, sinful, in need of God's redemption, and
> (2) as basically good, perfectable.
This is too simplistic a formulation. One need not feel that humans
are 'perfectable', and one can accept our 'sinful' nature (though I
wouldn't choose that particular word) simply because one does not
believe in your God. While I am less certain of the meaning of good and
evil than you are, I do think those terms HAVE meaning, and I intend to
keep searching for it. I feel they descend from our nature as living,
social, sentient beings; this is what I call humanism.
> That is, of course, the
> only alternative: faith in a higher God, or faith in ourselves as god(s).
Again, too simplistic. I don't need to refer to humans as 'gods' at
all; I have faith in reality (cf. my other postings) , and our existance
in it as human beings. I reject the term God entirely, because it is
too emotionally loaded.
The Universe does not have to have a rational, thinking, author in order
for human life to have meaning.
> (But consider this: if there is no God, there is no such thing as
right and wrong.)
As stated above, I reject this as cant.
> In fact, this is the one point that separates Judeo-Christian belief from
> everything else. When you boil it all down, there are only two world
> views (different flavors, yes, but only two kinds).
And this, I'm afraid, is arrogant. You are right in your summation of
our differences (Christian theology vs. humanism) but I think you
overstep the bounds of fairness when you lump all non-Christians in with
me. (I guess you're excepting the Jews?) There are many other pious,
God-believing people in the world who do NOT accept my rationalistic,
humanistic view of things. I've always found this the most
incomprehensible aspect of Christianity: how can you reject, out of
hand, the clearly devout beliefs of other religions? How can you be so
sure that God - your God - has not revealed itself to other cultures in
the same way it did to Moses or Jesus? I have to assign this to ignorance.
> ... your many other quotes from old Supreme Court decisions are
> >interesting, but I think you must agree that they are dated. Things DO
> >change. After all, the Plessy v. Ferguson decision (allowing Jim Crow
> >racist laws) was made in 1896 - do you think it is still applicable?
...a long and pious answer...
But I don't think you ever answered my question, really. Are you
saying that the Plessy case was decided by non-Christians, and was
therefore immoral? Or do you think it was OK? My point was that
quoting Supreme Court decisions out of context is a chancy way of
defending any point, especially when some of the quotations are quite old.
> (If He's not there, we're back to square one again: no God = no rights.)
This point turns on the definition of a 'right', admittedly not an easy
task. If you define all rights as God-given, then atheism clearly means
'no rights'. But of course, I deny that rights are God-given (even if
Jefferson thought so: I certainly don't think Jefferson, or Washington,
or any of them, was infallible!). Rights, such as they are, are agreed
upon by people as the guidelines for human interaction. You are correct
in saying that this makes them very fragile indeed, which is no doubt
what prompted the slogan, 'The price of liberty is eternal vigilence'.
If God were going to ensure our rights, what sort of vigilence would be
necessary? Weekly church attendance and Bible readings? This brings me
back to my original, first question: exactly which rights here on earth
ARE guaranteed by God? And whom do I believe to tell me what God really
thinks?
> If man is an eternal being and God's creature, he outlives the state
> and his eternal rights supersede state authority. If it all ends when you
> kick the bucket, what's the difference? Where is your value? The state
> usually outlives you, so its supposed interests supersede yours.
Of course, this is a problem. Governments tend to increase their
authority, grab for power, and attempt to extend their controls. The
only one who can, in the end, protect my rights is ME. My best weapon
in this battle is to convince others through rational argument that they
should allow me my freedom as the price of their own. So far, I think
this has worked pretty well in the US. There are plenty of problems,
but things seem to have gotten better in many ways. I'm not,
incidentally, holding my breath waiting for perfection!
> Just because you claim certain rights, that doesn't make it so. Rights are
> conferred from above, not grabbed from below.
In my opinion, this is in exact opposition to the priciples of the
American revolution. Rights had ALWAYS been conferred 'from above'.
Kings and tyrants always claimed divine authority as a defense of their
power. While I'm no expert on theology, I think you've carried the
Christian interpretation of the founding fathers too far: they did not
piously assume that God intended them to build a nation in His name;
rather, they believed that it was in their hands to create a new order.
This new order was surely believed to be in concert with God's intent,
but was not primarily described in scripture or by Christian teachings.
Loren Petrich
I think that "btif...@pbs.uucp" has been unfair to Thomas
Jefferson and some others of our Founding Fathers. Jefferson was a
sort of Unitarian/Deist; he believed that the Universe had a
creator/designer, but he believed that Jesus Christ was a great man,
yet still a man. He even came up with the "Jefferson Bible", a life of
Jesus composed from the four Gospels, from which all the miracles had
been edited out. This peculiar rationalist bowdlerization was never
published during Jefferson's lifetime; he had been repeatedly attacked
for his unorthodox religious views, and he didn't want to stick his
neck out any further. So be careful in judging him from what he did in
public. In private, he stated that he was sure that the virgin birth
of Jesus Christ would someday be regarded on the level of the birth of
Athena (fully grown -- and clothed in her favorite outfit, a suit of
armor) from the head of Zeus, for example.
Thomas Paine, who had wrote the "Common Sense" pamphlets and
wanted the Declaration of Independence to condemn slavery, had beliefs
similar to Jefferson. Though he believed that the Universe had a
creator/designer, he believed that said being had had NOTHING to do
with the Bible, which he severely criticized on a variety of grounds,
pointing out numerous contradictions and discrepancies, as well as an
abundance of things that one would consider very wicked. He published
his views in the "Age of Reason" (certainly not "Faith"), and was
blasted by the clergy. One of them conceded that parts of the first
five books were not written by Moses (he's always in the third person,
and Deuteronomy refers to his death) and some of the Psalms were not
written by David (Psalm 137 describes the misery of being in exile in
Babylon, something that happened well after David's reign). For that,
he got in deep trouble with his church. Another clergyman was
indignant at Paine's interpretation of the selective massacre of the
Midianites, in which the men and the married women were to be killed,
but not the unmarried women who have never gone to bed with any man.
They were not turned into concubines at all, but into slaves,
something to which there could be no moral objection.
All in all, the "Age of Reason" was one of my predecessors in
the fine art of collecting "Satanic Verses".
George Washington spoke of a vague "Providence", but avoided
mention of Jesus Christ or the Bible, or even the word "God". He may
not quite have been a Deist, but he was probably close.
And where did the idea of democracy come from? Where the word
itself came from -- ancient Greece. Though ancient Greek "democracy"
was imperfect -- slaves and women had no votes, for example -- the
ideal was still there. (Check out I.F. Stone's _The Trial of Socrates_
for an interesting view of the subject) There is no mention of
democracy _anywhere_ in the Bible. Indeed, the only theory of
government mentioned is the Divine Right of Kings. The supporters of
absolute monarchy of a couple centuries back had certainly had the
Bible on their side.
Citing the examples of Solzhenitsyn and Martin Luther King in
favor of Christianity is interesting. But there is more to be said.
King had been inspired by Mohandas Gandhi, a Hindu, who had followed
Jesus Christ's ideal of turning the other cheek much better than the
vast majority of those who consider themselves Christians (who would
probably laugh that teaching away if it appeared outside the Bible).
And let us not forget that King's opponents also considered themselves
Christians, and that they considered racial segregation a "fundamental
Christian principle of morality". Solzhenitsyn? Though he has done
valuable work on Stalin's persecutions, he seems to hanker for a
Tsar-like leader. Somehow, I suspect that the authoritarian government
that he craves will have exactly the vices that he complains about in
Communists. For example, he liked dictator Francisco Franco of Spain.
>> What I do not accept is that belief in a Christian God is necessary to
>>have a moral people.
I agree. The large numbers of virtuous non-Christians is
convincing evidence. Consider that Christianity has been around only
for the last 2000 years, while our species has been around for about
150,000 -- 200,000 years. If humanity is so fundamentally depraved
that we could not be virtuous unless we believed that traditional
Christian dogma is ABSOLUTE TRUTH, then humanity would have gone
extinct long ago. Our existence almost certainly disproves that claim.
And how many self-proclaimed Christians have not been "true
Christians"?
>
> Here is where our fundamental disagreement is. There are basically
>two views of man: (1) as fallen, sinful, in need of God's redemption, and
>(2) as basically good, perfectable. You spoke of replacing faith in God
>with a "humanistic faith", a faith in humanity. That is, of course, the
>only alternative: faith in a higher God, or faith in ourselves as god(s).
>Your statement implies that man is good, and can be his own savior (If we
>could just get our act together! Don't hold your breath ...).
There is a third theory, the elitist theory, that states that
the vast majority of people are incapable of handling their own
affairs, and that it is up to some appropriate elite with the
appropriate knowledge to do this handling. In practice, theory (1)
reduces to this theory, with the clergy as the elite, since it is the
clergy who has the most detailed knowledge of God (at least, so they
assure us). Interestingly, Communism, though having (2) as an ideal,
follows the elitist theory to the letter -- it is the Communist Party
that knows what's best for humanity, at least according to Communists.
As to "if there was no God, there would be no rights or law"
-- I think that that is naive. Why is God supposed to be obeyed? What
if he ought to be disobeyed? After all, if the Universe has a creator,
then said being might be a very wicked being, by our standards, or (as
I sometimes suspect) a being that regards humanity the same way I
regarded pillbugs in my childhood -- something interesting and amusing.
For my part, I think that the idea of "rights" is a convenient
legal fiction. It is also a concept totally absent from the Bible.
^
Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster \ ^ /
lo...@sunlight.llnl.gov \ ^ /
One may need to route through any of: \^/
<<<<<<<<+>>>>>>>>
lll-lcc.llnl.gov /v\
lll-crg.llnl.gov / v \
star.stanford.edu / v \
v
"Crucifixes are sexy because there's a naked man on them" -- Madonna
John Faucett
writes...
# ...
# And where did the idea of democracy come from? Where the word
#itself came from -- ancient Greece. Though ancient Greek "democracy"
#was imperfect -- slaves and women had no votes, for example -- the
#ideal was still there. (Check out I.F. Stone's _The Trial of Socrates_
#for an interesting view of the subject)
# ...
Certainly ancient Greece had something to do with the idea of democracy,
but American democracy owes a great deal to Native American culture.
Both Thomas Jefferson and Ben Franklin were extremely familiar with
the Nation of the Iroquois. A number of features of the American federal
system appear to modeled after the government of the Iroquois. Settlers
who were in close contact with Native American cultures brought democratic
ideas back to the colonies, and this was a process which occurred over
many, many decades.
Reference: _Indian Givers_, recently published. (I loaned the book so
I don't have the author. I can get that information for anyone who is
interested.)
John Faucett - - - - - fau...@dac.lanl.gov - - fau...@lampf.bitnet
chris ross
some valid points about the problems of government, such as
> Unless we control our appetites, we cannot control our government.
> We certainly cannot expect it to limit itself, because it senses our
> appetites far more strongly than it is persuaded by our claims that
> we are tired of bureaucracy, taxes, and government interference.
However, his solution seems to be based entirely on subjective and quite
untenable religious beliefs. He asserts that
> God is the only ultimate authority. He determines the proper function of
> any legitimate authority structure. ... If we are to define the limits of
> civil government, the Word of God must be our source. The purpose,
> function, and authority of civil government are clearly developed in the
> pages of Scripture.
This argument has some serious flaws. First of all, the acceptance of god
(or any being) as an ultimate authority at least requires that the being
exist. And after nearly two _thousand_ years of tyranny, dogma, and mass
mailings, the Christian church has failed miserably to prove that their
Supreme Being is anything more than a consensual hallucination.
Even if we were to disregard the existence problem and accept Scripture at
face value, we still have a problem of completeness. The Bible does not
specify a solution to _every_ problem that a government (or any ruling body)
will face. In such cases, humans must judge for themselves, using a
standard independent of the Bible.
We can disregard that problem as well, and we still have the dilemma of how
to judge Scripture in the first place. By what standard are we to know that
it is the word of god? "Ah," say the theists, "because it _says_ so."
This is ludicrous. As I pointed out in an earlier posting, I can write a
book which makes precisely this claim, and it will carry no weight
whatsoever. DeMar even recognizes this:
> The claim of authority does not validate the claim.
but conveniently neglects to apply it to Scripture.
chris ross---\ "Your species has the most amazing capacity for
| | self-deception, matched only by its ingenuity
cjr...@bbn.com in destroying itself." -- The 7th Doctor Who
Tobias Barrett
> From what I've seen in this news group so far, libertarianism (the
>belief that people should, to the largest extent possible, take care of
>themselves and leave others alone) is quite prevalent among
>self-professed atheists.
Is there any evidence to suggest that libertarianism is more prevalent
among atheists than theists? Isn't it possible to be a socialist
atheist?
It's interesting to note that Mr Taylor accepts the notion of rights
when applied to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc, but not
when applied to health-care. Why?
Me? I dislike religion and libertarianism pretty much equally!
Toby
Dave Jones
) In article <7...@forsight.Jpl.Nasa.Gov), I wrote:
)) ... if we are to have religious freedom in this country
)) then we must ... occasionally accept ... the death of an
)) innocent child as the cost of that freedom.
))
)
) I was positive I would get massively flamed for that comment, but not
) a single person has replied to it. This has me slightly worried. Was
) everyone so massively offended that they decided it not worth the
) keystrokes?
"Offended" is not exactly the right word, but "not worth the keystrokes"
is right on the mark. Don't be discouraged, though. Keep up the taunting,
and eventually you will get the "massive" irate reaction you are
angling for.
Thomas Mark Swiss
>The distinction is whether or not the state sanctions or promotes the
>activity. Read the first amendment and fourteenth amendments to the
>constitution. Those should clear things up. The first amendment says that
>the U.S. government stays out of religion, and the fourteenth says that
>what goes for the federal government goes for the states -- and that
>includes state school districts. Hence, the school may not promote
>prayer or restrict it. Simple enough?
>
Well said.
Somebody told me that Thursday was, by an Act of Congress a few years ago,
National Prayer Day. Is this true? If so, I hope there's LOTS of legal action
being taken to remove this piece of pro-superstion legislation...
================================================================================
Tom Swiss | "The time will come when men such as I will
fan...@wam.umd.edu |look on the murder of animals as they now look
"The truth will set you free. |on the murder of men." - Leonardo da Vinci
But first it will piss you off."| "Heisenberg wasn't certain; how can you be??"
Wayne Aiken
>In article <74...@paperboy.OSF.ORG> j...@osf.org (Jon Taylor) writes:
>> From what I've seen in this news group so far, libertarianism (the
>>belief that people should, to the largest extent possible, take care of
>>themselves and leave others alone) is quite prevalent among
>>self-professed atheists.
>Is there any evidence to suggest that libertarianism is more prevalent
>among atheists than theists? Isn't it possible to be a socialist
>atheist?
To say that one is an atheist means only that one has taken a particular
intellectual position with respect to religious ideas. Nothing more, nothing
less. It implies absolutely nothing about a person's ideas with respect to
any other issue, thus atheists hold a wide range of social and political ideas.
From what I've read of the net, it does seem that a majority of atheists hold
libertarian (or classical liberal) ideas, but the net isn't necessarily
representative of society in general.
>It's interesting to note that Mr Taylor accepts the notion of rights
>when applied to freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, etc, but not
>when applied to health-care. Why?
Possibly because a right which necessitates the *initiation* of force
against others is not considered by many to be a true right. Who pays for
the "right" to health-care?
Wayne Aiken neto...@ncsuvm.bitnet "You can BE what
PO Box 30904 neto...@ncsuvm.ncsu.edu you WON'T!!"
Raleigh, NC 27622 wa...@shumv1.ncsu.edu --"Bob"
(919) 782-8171 BBS: (919) 782-3095
#
Doug Linder
(Thomas Mark Swiss) writes:
> Somebody told me that Thursday was, by an Act of Congress a few years ago,
> National Prayer Day. Is this true? If so, I hope there's LOTS of legal action
> being taken to remove this piece of pro-superstion legislation...
Yeah, right - and then you woke up. National "days" like this come directly
by presidential decree (though I think congress has the power to suggest them).
I have no idea how one would go about chllenging the legality of such a thing
since no one is required to do anything. It's just another little way the
president can lick the collective anus of religion while not doing anything to
get into trouble. Why don't YOU try to do something about it instead of hoping
that someone else will? Write a letter. Might not help, but at least your
politicians will know that *you* care, and add your name to the growing list of
people who do.
Besides, if you think *that's* bad, Ronald "Religious Right Robot" Reagan
declared an entire YEAR, 198?, as "The Year of the Bible." Kinda makes you
want to toss your cookies, eh? Well, I tossed lots o' stuff - but mostly it
was Bibles - right into my fireplace. Those thin pages sure make good
fire-starting material. Just grab free ones from hotel room. And no one give
me a hard time about "stealing" - it says right inside the cover that you are
free to take it if you want. So Nyah!
=================================================================
Douglas D. Linder lin...@merrimack.edu
Merrimack College, N. Andover, MA {uunet,wang,ulowell}!samsung!hubdub!linderd
v^v^v Atheism: Living life on your own two feet - not on your knees! v^v^v^
"By the cold and religious we were taken in hand -
shown how to feel good; and told to feel bad."
- Roger Waters, from The Final Cut (Pink Floyd)
Jon Taylor
(sorry if a partly written message got sent - I'm no mail hacker!)
I didn't feel your message was contentious; you actually ASKED a
question, instead of simply declaring truth as so many do in this group!
I certainly did not mean to imply in my original posting that all
atheists are libertarians! Sorry if it came out that way. It does seem
that the proportion of libertarians among the people posting to this
group is higher than in the general population - but even that statement
is only a 'feeling' and not proven at all.
As for the discussion of rights, let me foist a thought-experiment on you:
Imagine a society where peace and freedom truly reigns; where everyone
cooperates; where no one tries to rip off his/her neighbor; where
everyone respects their fellow beings and leaves them alone. In such a
society, people would only join together voluntarily. There would be no
coercion of any kind, whether it be slavery, involuntary social
planning, muggings, rapes, or anything else.
In this ideal society, where each individual is respected to the
highest extent, certain rights would naturally obtain: the right to
speak one's mind (though there would be no guarantee that anyone else
would listen); the right to free assembly (as long as no one was
coerced into assembling); the right to practice any, all, or no
religious practices (as long as they didn't hurt others). In this
society people would also have a deep committment to cooperation with
their fellows. Thus, certain benefits would be available to all those
who were unable to fend for themselves: children would be raised with
compassion and understanding; the handicapped would be supported in
their special needs; the victims of natural tragedy would be helped to
regain their strength. These benefits would not be 'legislated' by a
domineering government; rather, people would feel it part of their
natural humanity to share their good fortune with others they felt to be
in need of it.
NOW - I hear you saying, this is an unachievable ideal, and I
reluctantly agree. Nevertheless, being a romantic idealist, I think one
should never lose sight of one's ideals, unrealistic though they may be
on earth. For a Christian, the ideal is some sort of heavenly bliss;
for me as a humanist, it's the society I've described. What I derive
from this idealistic vision is the dichotomy I mentoned in my last email
between 'rights' and 'privileges'. The right to free speech is nothing
more than a special case of the right to live one's own life on one's
own terms; the privilege of free medical care is a specific gift from a
generous society. This may seem, given the realities of this flawed
world, to be an arbitrary, semantic distinction. I guess I do have
something in common with the Christians, in that I feel we risk becoming
morally decadent if we give up all visions of 'heaven', be they God-like
or humanistic.
What I have yet to see, though I'm always open to more looking, is a
socialist vision that is parallel to my own. It seems to me that the
socialists that have been most visionary (Lenin, Mao) have also been
among the most opportunistic and led the way to violence and horror.
Their error, it seems to me, has been in their assumption that people
could be coerced into cooperation, their willingness to sacrifice the
means to obtain the desired ends. While I certainly do not equate all
socialism with the bloody examples of Russia and China, I do see a
tendency in the socialist mindset to overlook costs (the 'means') and
only focus on benefits (the 'ends').
As an aside: I think your example of Rushdie is flawed, in that what
you are paying for is not his right to speak, but his right not to be
attacked by thugs and murderers - you yourself benefit from the
protection of the police as well, though perhaps your well-being is not
as threatened as Mr. Rushdie's!)
And lastly (if I haven't put you to sleep yet!): 'chacun a son gout'
is French for 'each to his own taste'. My apologies for being
needlessly obscure.
Jon Taylor
Whoops! Call me a dingbat....I posted a personal response that I was
trying to email. Sorry all.
To Tobias Barret: the previous posting was intended to be in response
to your email.
To everyone else: the subject ain't exactly atheism, and I apologize.