Which controversial group has done the most to protect the environment? Greenpeace? Earth First? The Sierra Club? Not according to Robert Nova, a regional president for Planned Parenthood, who recently spoke to the Roanoke Times:
Nova argues that Planned Parenthood, which promotes family planning and provides abortions, is an environmental organization because of its effect on population.
"If you looked at the level of consumption of Americans and the level of unintended pregnancies prevented ... you could argue that Planned Parenthood has done as much for environment as any organization in history," Nova said. [empasis added]
I wasn’t aware that 'unintended" children consumed more resources than other people. That’s certainly news to me. Perhaps instead of wasting time planting trees on Earth Day we should be encouraging pregnant women to have abortions.
What does it say about a country that makes it is illegal to destroy a form of milkweed yet allows its own infants to be slaughtered in the womb?
(Hat tip: World magazine blog)
And taken to its logical conclusion...killing people is ecologically beneficial. I guess we all owe something to the people on death row.
Joe Carter muses:
"I wasn’t aware that “unintended” children consumed more resources than other people. That’s certainly news to me. Perhaps instead of wasting time planting trees on Earth Day we should be encouraging pregnant women to have abortions. "
Or people living in overpopulated parts of this country and other countries could be informed about and use birth control if they want to avoid being pregnant in the first place. If you don't understand the relationship between pollution and population, take a drink out of the Hudson River sometime. Or better yet, the Euphrates. Nova never said that "unintended" children consumed more resources than other people. Nor did Nova say that abortions were helping the environment.
But you said it Joe. Rather dishonest of you, I must say, but based on what I've read elsewhere on this blog that is par for the course. The irony is not lost on me.
Joe, do you deny that Planned Parenthood has done more to prevent the *conception* of children by married people who DO NOT WANT ANY MORE CHILDREN than any other organization in the world?
Joe also wrote this:
"What does it say about a country that makes it is illegal to destroy a form of milkweed yet allows its own infants to be slaughtered in the womb?"
How profound. What does it say about a blog that gleefully spreads misleading news stories about a health care provider but chooses to cheer on our army as it blows innocent children to bits half a world away?
This is disgusting and wrong on so many levels, I don't even know where to begin.
What a wacked-out idea.
I can't get the link to the Roanoke Times site to work. Anyone have the text to the complete article?
"Joe, do you deny that Planned Parenthood has done more to prevent the *conception* of children by married people who DO NOT WANT ANY MORE CHILDREN than any other organization in the world?"
I didn't know married couples were the biggest target market for the PP. Last time I checked, they even had a bulletin board up for teens to answer their questions about sex and those unintended pregnancies.
"How profound. What does it say about a blog that gleefully spreads misleading news stories about a health care provider but chooses to cheer on our army as it blows innocent children to bits half a world away?"
Misleading? Did YOU fact-check the article yourself?
Also, you don't seem to realize that Joe is a Marine scheduled to deploy to Iraq in several months. And apparently you haven't read the articles concerning the Marines in the hot zones of Iraq right now - they strive to avoid shooting civilians, but how can they do so when the terrorists they fight use children as shields?
And if you continue to exhibit troll like behavior, Mr. Robinson, by making constant appeals to emotion to further your arguments and disparaging the author of this blog, I'd say that says something about you, too.
Glen,
Or people living in overpopulated parts of this country and other countries could be informed about and use birth control if they want to avoid being pregnant in the first place.
I agree that information on contraceptive practices should be available to those who want it.
If you don't understand the relationship between pollution and population, take a drink out of the Hudson River sometime. Or better yet, the Euphrates.
I understand quite clearly the connection between pollution and population in a given area. What I don’t understand is why unintended pregnancies are to blame for overpopulation.
Nova never said that "unintended" children consumed more resources than other
Let’s take another look at what Nova said:
1. If you look at X (the level of consumption of Americans)
2. And if you look at Y (the level of unintended pregnancies prevented)
3. You could Z (argue that Planned Parenthood has done as much for environment as any organization in history,")
His argument could be restated as saying: Since Americans have a high level of consumption, by reducing the number of unintended pregnancies Americans have, the more will be done for the environment.
There is nothing wrong with the argument as stated. It is only when he adds the words “Planned Parenthood” that the controversy arises. If by “unintended pregnancies” he meant only those that were prevented before a woman became pregnant, then there would be no problem. But the fact is that Nova works for the largest abortion provider in the country. For you, or anyone, to claim that when he was talking about how PP helped reduce the “level of unintended pregnancies” he was referring only to contraceptive and not to abortion would be disingenuous.
Nor did Nova say that abortions were helping the environment.
Nova said that PP helped the environment by reducing the level of unintended pregnancies. Do you think the majority of abortions they perform are on women who had intended pregnancies? If not , then how can you claim that was not what he was referring to?
But you said it Joe. Rather dishonest of you, I must say, but based on what I've read elsewhere on this blog that is par for the course. The irony is not lost on me.
The irony may not be but the logic and reasoning sure are.
Joe, do you deny that Planned Parenthood has done more to prevent the *conception* of children by married people who DO NOT WANT ANY MORE CHILDREN than any other organization in the world?
Yes, actually, I do. The organization that can claim that honor is not PP but USAID.
How profound. What does it say about a blog that gleefully spreads misleading news stories about a health care provider but chooses to cheer on our army as it blows innocent children to bits half a world away?
Perhaps you should start by explaining what I said that was misleading. Next you can explain where I cheered on the Palestinians. (I assume you are referring to them since they are the only ones I know of who blow up innocent children on a regular basis.)
if evangelicals really wanted a to curb abortion and the population explosion, they would be handing out condoms on street corners instead of carrying signs that say the 'end is near.' instead, the opposite is happening, evengelicals and catholics ENCOURAGE overpopulation my their lackadazical attitudes and beliefs in re-populating the earth (that i looked the earth is populated). they think it is everyone's god-given right to have 2.4 kids.
One question, after keying in on the word "overpopulation":
It seems to me that, if we can possibly know that regions or even the world is "overpopulated", we must know with some level of accuracy what the optimal, or "correct", number of humans would be. What is the correct number, and how many births need be aborted, euthanasias performed, or malaria deaths permitted to reach that number (an answer within +/- 10% and an evidential basis would be very nice).
In related news, Planned Parenthood posthumously awarded its "Environmentalist of the Century Award" to Josef Stalin, solely responsible for the preservation of hundreds of millions of Soviet acres through the killing of nearly 20 million citizens. Said a Planned Parenthood spokesman: "Though at the time, Stalin's approach to Soviet environmentalism seemed harsh, the societal benefits of pristine forest and tayga will be seen for centuries to come. It was an unpleasant decision, one that we, nor anyone else, should have to have made--it was solely between Stalin and his god."
Runners up Adolf Hitler and Pol Pot could not be reached for comment, though a Hitler supporter was baffled. "Who has done more for the environment than Adolf Hitler? Who has done more to rid Europe of pollution, trash, and Jews? The autobahns were built to celebrate the German countryside--to get the working man to appreciate the world around him! Stalin just doesn't seem a rational choice. Stalin killed 20 million, to be sure, but Hitler killed more Russians than Stalin even managed to!"
Another complaint was lodged by the Al Queda terrorist network, who pointed to their demolition of two New York City skyscrapers, four fuel-guzzling jet aircraft, and over 3,000 Americans, widely known for their abuse of the environment. Planned Parenthood, according to the spokesman, "regrets the misunderstanding", and stated that "this award was given to mark the greatest contributions to environmentalism in the 20th Century." Al Queda, he observed, would be a strong contender for the 21st century's award.
This is the problem with the "Think Globally, Act Locally" bumper-sticker set.
They think "the world is overpopulated" and extrapolate that to mean "there are too many babies being born in america".
Which is certainly NOT the case.
Rhea:
"Also, you don't seem to realize that Joe is a Marine scheduled to deploy to Iraq in several months."
That's terrible news. I feel bad for Joe and for his family.
"they strive to avoid shooting civilians, but how can they do so when the terrorists they fight use children as shields?"
What "terrorists"? They're not fighting terrorists, they're fighting *insurgents* who are angry at the U.S. for screwing up their country and killing their families. If you think every Iraq child killed by the U.S. was being used as a "shield" by terrorists, that is a ridiculous fantasy. Do you read the news?
"Fallujah, Iraq, Apr 11 - United States Marines have killed more than 600 Iraqis in the Sunni stronghold of Fallujah, according to reports gathered from local clinics. The reports do not appear to be disputed by occupation authorities or other US officials. . . . Local medical authorities say over 600 bodies have actually been counted at area emergency facilities, but it is widely believed that a significant number of victims have been buried without ever receiving care at a clinic or hospital. . . .There is a seemingly constant stream of wounded Iraqis -- mostly women and children --being delivered on rudimentary stretchers into the clinics. Cars squeal up on to the curb in front of the clinic, wailing family members drag or carry their loved ones inside, and overstretched aid workers scramble to accommodate the influx of casualties. . . . Two of the victims, woman and small child, were brought in simultaneously. Both had been shot in the neck by what witnesses said was a US sniper. Medical personnel expected neither to survive the injuries."
Tip of the iceberg, Rhea.
"And if you continue to exhibit troll like behavior, Mr. Robinson, by making constant appeals to emotion . . ."
Rhea, how is Joe's statement that "[allowing]infants to be slaughtered in the womb" any less of an "emotional appeal" than the one I am making?
First of all, the whole idea of "overpopulation" isn't even Biblical. It's a concept that was made up by people who wanted to "play god"; the secular humanists who had their own hidden agendas. You know, people like the founder of PP. When we speak of "overpopulation", what we are really referring to is our failure as humans to be utlize the Earth effectively. The Earth was created to sustain all the life that comes forth. Threats of there not being enough food, space, etc. are smokescreens. There is more than enough food and space on the Earth for everyone. We're just not doing our jobs.
Joe
"I agree that information on contraceptive practices should be available to those who want it. . . . I understand quite clearly the connection between pollution and population in a given area."
Cool. We're on the same page.
"For you, or anyone, to claim that when he was talking about how PP helped reduce the “level of unintended pregnancies” he was referring only to contraceptive and not to abortion would be disingenuous."
Really? The number of abortions in this country is INSIGNIFCANTLY SMALL compared to the number of unintended pregnancies prevented by birth control devices and abstinence, each of which are taught by Planned Parenthood as great ways to prevent unintended pregancies (not to mention STDs).
There's nothing "disingenuous" about my claim. You're putting words into Nova's mouth. As far as you're concerned, Planned Parenthood is just a big abortion clinic. That's simply not true. It would be easy enough to ask Nova what he meant, Joe. For some reason the Roanoke Times didn't feel necessary to ask. It's that sloppy "liberal" media again.
"The organization that can claim that honor is not PP but USAID."
I'd like to see some support for this statement. In any event, I'm glad USAID is contributing to reducing overpopulation.
What does it say about a country that makes it is illegal to destroy a form of milkweed yet allows its own infants to be slaughtered in the womb?
Um . . . that they care about the environment and personal autonomy for women?
Greg: I'd like to see some support for this statement. In any event, I'm glad USAID is contributing to reducing overpopulation.
Sorry, I didn’t realize the link above was broken. Here is one of the relevant USAID briefs.
Kevin: Um . . . that they care about the environment and personal autonomy for women?
So why, within the realm of “environment”, would you include milkweeds but not human fetuses? Also, do you support complete personal autonomy for women or just when it comes to killing their children? What about the autonomy of woman in China to abort female infants? Should we respect that autonomy or would you be willing to impose limits on them based on your own criteria?
Not to make a value judgement in favor of abortion, but "be fruitful and multiply" didn't mean "be fruitful and breed like rats." Multiply means have kids, not "have as many kids as your womb can pop out."
"do you support complete personal autonomy for women or just when it comes to killing their children?"
Sheesh. I'm guessing that Kevin doesn't equate abortion with child-killing, Joe (very few people in this country do, as a matter of fact).
In your fantasy world, Joe, where abortion is illegal, would you support the death penalty for women who seek abortions? Or would you make a distinction regarding culpability for abortion and, e.g., smothering ones toddler?
What about pregancies resulting from rape or incest? Would a woman who illegally aborted a child born from rape or incest be given a lighter sentence? What sort of statutory requirements would you suggest for proving the rape or incest occured? Would the rape or incest need to have been reported before the abortion?
I think these questions are important to answer if you would like to equate abortion with murder. They are the types of questions which you can be CERTAIN will need to be addressed by legislatures if your equation was accepted as a fair one.
From the website, Planned Parenthood had this in mind when it was founded by M. Sanger
Bardolf, what does "this" refer to in your post, and what text on PP's website are you referring to?
Recall that our man Joe Carter, not Mr. Nova or Planned Parenthood, was the genius who imagined an environmental policy wherein "instead of wasting time planting trees on Earth Day we should be encouraging pregnant women to have abortions."
Here is what the Planned Parenthood site says about Population:
"It is the policy of Planned Parenthood Federation of America to advance understanding of the interrelationship between population growth and the quality of human life. Voluntary family planning programs and sound population policies contribute to the process of socioeconomic development and to family health, particularly in countries where rapid population growth hinders development efforts. Therefore, the Federation is committed to providing education in the communities it serves to enable people to understand the scope of world population growth and its impact on the economic, political, social, and physical environment we all must share."
So where's the part about "encouraging pregnant women to have abortions" to save the environment? Is it possible, Joe and others, that you are equating the availability of abortions with "encouraging" women to get pregnant and have an abortion?
Please enlighten me, Ambra. I am a secular humanist, but I'm unaware of our "hidden agenda". I must not have gotten the memo. I knew I shouldn't have missed the big conspirators meeting last month. :-) There is no hidden agenda. We don't want to take away your freedom of religion, and we don't want to impose a moral-free society on you good people. It's not like we are Christian Reconstructionists or "Illuminati" paranoiacs or anything like that. Relax. We are regular folks who want nothing more than to choose our own worldview. By the way, am I to assume you believe the Earth can sustain unlimited population growth? I personally abhor abortion, but I certainly support Planned Parenthood. Contraception is good. Knowledge of reproductive choices is good.
I'm so disappointed. No one has stepped up to quantifying the "over", "correct", and "under" populated question. Now, really, I know, and you know, why no one answers that question. Because no one knows the answer. What "overpopulation" really means is:
There are more people on the planet than you, and your Malthusian soulmates, would like for there to be. You prefer to ride your mountain bike in forests unpopulated by noisy, bothersome children that are not yours. You prefer to hunt on public land unbothered by other hunters. Traffic is such a bummer. And all those third-world mouths sucking up resources on areas you would have liked to have visited when they were pristine irks the hell out of you.
Or is there an actual number, rationally derived?
George:
"You prefer to ride your mountain bike in forests unpopulated by noisy, bothersome children that are not yours. You prefer to hunt on public land unbothered by other hunters. Traffic is such a bummer. And all those third-world mouths sucking up resources on areas you would have liked to have visited when they were pristine irks the hell out of you."
Actually, George, I would just like to live near a city but not have to buy my clean air and water in bottles from a private treatment facility. I don't think a twenty five or fifty fold increase in the present population of the United States is going to be consistent with that desire. That's about 3 to 5 doublings in the population.
Just my opinion, George. What about you? Are you moving to Calcutta for the good life?
Quote: In your fantasy world, Joe, where abortion is illegal, would you support the death penalty for women who seek abortions? Or would you make a distinction regarding culpability for abortion and, e.g., smothering ones toddler?
What about pregancies resulting from rape or incest? Would a woman who illegally aborted a child born from rape or incest be given a lighter sentence? What sort of statutory requirements would you suggest for proving the rape or incest occured? Would the rape or incest need to have been reported before the abortion?
Are you trying to break the record for the number of appeals to pity made in a single post? Dude, do you really think there no one has answered these questions before? Why are you being such a troll? Here's a tip: read the books on www.ohiolife.org.
Quote: I am a secular humanist, but I'm unaware of our "hidden agenda". I must not have gotten the memo. I knew I shouldn't have missed the big conspirators meeting last month. :-) There is no hidden agenda. We don't want to take away your freedom of religion, and we don't want to impose a moral-free society on you good people
If all of you secular humanists are all nice people who don't want to take away our freedom of religion and impose a "moral-free"(whatever that is) society on us then why do you keep doing it? Are you saying its an accident that religion keeps on disappearing from public view? Keep up the sarcasm it only makes you look like the big jerk you are.
Septeus7:
"Are you trying to break the record for the number of appeals to pity made in a single post?"
Huh? What "appeals to pity"? I'm assuming that you aren't proposing that women are exempt from Constitutional protections afforded to other persons accused of crimes. Let me know if that is not the case.
"Dude, do you really think there no one has answered these questions before? Why are you being such a troll? Here's a tip: read the books on www.ohiolife.org."
Are you saying that the website has compiled books which contain all of Joe Carter's opinions relating to the questions I asked? Are all of your opinions compiled there as well, Septeus? So much for free thought. Where do you find the rest of your scripts, Septeus (other than the Bible)?
"If all of you secular humanists are all nice people who don't want to take away our freedom of religion and impose a "moral-free"(whatever that is) society on us then why do you keep doing it?"
What the heck are you talking about? I haven't taken anyway anyone's religious freedom. Moreover, please recall that this is one of the most religious countries on the planet. People continue to flock to this country in droves because they know they can practice their religious beliefs freely without persecution.
"Are you saying it's an accident that religion keeps on disappearing from public view?"
?????!!! As I recall there was an entire thread a couple weeks ago about the phenomenal success of a movie about Jesus. Are there not hundreds of showings of that film every day, all of which are open TO THE PUBLIC? Has it been banned anywhere? I don't recall it being banned from any city.
On the other hand, I do recall a lot of Christians trying to ban quite a few movies over the years and succeeding in preventing those movies from showing in their cities. And wasn't it mostly religious people who went insane after they saw eight or nine pixels worth of a nipple on TV earlier this year such that networks were subsequently forced to alter the way they monitor live broadcasts?
And why do you choose to ignore the daily impassioned references made by people to God and "our Creator" on the floor of Congress? And at nearly every significant public event (e.g., sports games, entertainment awards, etc.)? Not to mention our President who cites his allegiance to "the almighty" at every press conference these days.
So why all this kvetching about religion "disappearing" from the public view, Septeus? Could it possibly be that non-Christians in this country are tired of having Christianity (and as often as not, disgustingly warped versions of Christianity) shoved down their throats and used to justify medical research, tax cuts, wars, and everything in between?
I think this latter possibility is more likely than some group of "secular humanists" (whatever that is) trying to take over the world. You are free to believe that there is an "agenda" to take away your religious freedom, Septeus. If there were such agenda, you might imagine that someone would propose an amendment to the Constitution which specifically took away your religious freedom. I'm not aware that such an amendment has ever been spoken of in Congress. On the other hand, I am aware of amendments proposing to Constitutionalize the current majority religion's views in one way or another.
Go figure. I love our Constitution. I love the freedom people have in this country to express their views. I love America. Why do you hate America, Septeus?
Very nice, Septius7. Call me a "big jerk" because I try to lighten the mood with a little verbal irony. I even used a little smiley face, for crying out loud. You seem angry. Who is taking away your religious freedom, Septius7? No one! I pass ten churches every day on my twenty-minute drive to the high school where I teach. None of them pay taxes, and they are all free to put whatever message they like on their huge signs. When I arrive at school, I find a student body that is free to pray to its heart's content. Several Christian organizations meet and pray and distribute literature on school grounds. Every time I pass out a test, students pray. I'd prefer they studied the night before, but it's a free country. I don't see anyone's religious freedom being taken away, unless you consider the government's failure to echo and amplify your beliefs an infringement of your freedom to worship as you please. Besides, how could a relatively small and woefully under-represented minority force its agenda on the Christian majority? It's all we can do to prevent the reverse from happening! Religion disappearing from public view? Every Sunday the airwaves are saturated with evangelists. Every other word out of our presidents mouth is God. Didn't I see hundreds of congressmen reciting the Pledge on the Capitol steps last year when they felt the pledge was under siege? It was beseiged fifty years ago, not last year. Grow up, Septius7, and realize that honest differences of opinion don't mean that your opponents are big jerks or somehow out to get you.
Glen,
You buy bottled water because there are too many people? Odd, but it takes all kinds, I suppose. Personally, I didn't drink untreated water in the backcountry of Quetico Provincial Park (and, I assure you, the Canadian government keeps a tight lid on the number of visitors in the park at any given time). At least in Quetico, Giardia is *not* a problem caused by "over" population.
And you think Calcutta is a lousy place to live because there are too many people there? Glen, I don't want to move to San Ignacio in Belize because it has open sewers and a poverty-level economy, not because it is "over" populated. It might, however, meet your needs: small population, friendly people, clean air, lots of bicycles, few SUVs, absolutely fresh fruit available all year 'round, lots of bottled water, and the always excellent Belikin beer.
Now, about that optimal number of people... You do cite some odd numbers apparently grabbed out of the air or off some hyperventilating greenie website, but you don't discuss - ahem - the number I'm asking for. And if you don't know that, sir, you're just expressing your personal population aesthetic.
Are you saying that the website has compiled books which contain all of Joe Carter's opinions relating to the questions I asked?
No they contain books which answer most of questions in a way that I think would be consistant with Joe's opinions. Dude, those are not new arguments and you know it. I am tired answering this question because the argument that a law against abortion would be cruel to women is an appeal to pity and not relevant.
Quote: What the heck are you talking about? I haven't taken anyway anyone's religious freedom.
Wow a textbook example of example of the Strawman. You're so kind. Changing my clear subject of a collective to the personal.
Quote: So why all this kvetching about religion "disappearing" from the public view, Septeus? Could it possibly be that non-Christians in this country are tired of having Christianity (and as often as not, disgustingly warped versions of Christianity) shoved down their throats and used to justify medical research, tax cuts, wars, and everything in between?
So you admit it your tired all this " Christianity being shoved down" our throats and maybe some of you (secular humanists) are doing something about all public religion. As if all this Christianity in American just started recently and that's why you are so intolerant of this sudden wave of religious zealotry. Who's hating America now? If you think that the public's acceptance for Christian or Jewish religious ideas and display is higher than that of 50 years ago then I suggest that you seek help on learning how to read.
Quote: I think this latter possibility is more likely than some group of "secular humanists" (whatever that is) trying to take over the world.
Ever heard of Communism moron? I guess I must have imagined that group of secular humanists was bent on the global sprend of Communism? There are SOME groups of "secular humanists" who are trying to legally define the right of religious expression out of existance and to pretend otherwise is blatantly dishonest and makes you a troll.
Quote: I am aware of amendments proposing to Constitutionalize the current majority religion's views in one way or another.
Then Quote: I love America. Why do you hate America, Septeus?
So if anyone disagrees with you they hate America? Sir, you define the word Troll either stop making outrageous claims which don't contribute or just don't post.
Sorry! I forgot my name again. The above post was mine.
I generally avoid criticisms of grammar and punctuation, as they are issues not central to the discussion. However, since Septius7 persists in name-calling and impugning the intelligence and motivations of others, I will make an exception. Septius, your spelling and punctuation are atrocious. They reflect almost as poorly on your sophistication as your thoughts. Were a student of mine to submit such writing to me, I would immediately return it ungraded. Even given the relaxed standards of e-mail, it is hard to take you seriously when you exhibit the carelessness you so eagerly ascribe to others.
Rob,
Have you checked out any of dicknbush's posts?
Kevin: dicknbush has not provoked my scrutiny by attacking me personally. I usually refrain from criticizing others' use of language in this context. To do so might reinforce their negative stereotype of English teachers. :-) Besides, I make the occasional careless error myself. I omitted a possessive apostrophe a couple of posts back, and I typed "long" as "lond" last week. No one was petty enough to point these errors out, and I aspire to their level of restraint. In a "return-fire" situation, though, I make exceptions.
Oops! See what I mean? That last post was by me, forgetting that I was on someone else's computer and neglecting to add my name. Too bad there is no emoticon for a blush.
George
"you don't discuss - ahem - the number I'm asking for. And if you don't know that, sir, you're just expressing your personal population aesthetic. "
George: 50 to 100 billion people is too many people for this planet. ANd yes, that is only my opinion. I only know that a lot of green space around me is disappearing right now and it's disappearing because a lot of people are moving here from their own overpopulated countries. I hope that the world's population doesn't continuing doubling at its present rate for the next hundred years because I don't know how the current standard of living in the United States could be maintained. Perhaps the rate of growth will "naturally" slow down, I don't know. But I'm not going to sit quietly and watch everything slowly turn to crap. You should feel free to do so, however.
If my opinion regarding what constitutes overpopulation in a given area equals my "personal aesthetic" as far as you're concerned, that's fine. Fortunately there are a lot of people who share my personal aesthetic and we will continue working very hard to keep parasites out of your tap water.
I've never encountered anyone who believed that popoulation was, in all cases, completely unrelated to poverty or pollution or starvation or quality of life generally. From where I'm standing, countries with the highest standards of living and life expectancy etc. tend NOT to be the most crowded countries on the planet.
"You buy bottled water because there are too many people? Odd, but it takes all kinds, I suppose."
I don't buy bottled water. Never said that I did. In fact, I said the opposite. I take water from my tap, which is where many bottled water suppliers get their water (although they may filter it or add flavors before selling it). My tap water's great, at least for the time being.
"So if anyone disagrees with you they hate America? Sir, you define the word Troll either stop making outrageous claims which don't contribute or just don't post."
Septeus, it's called irony. The "hating America" line, as you should know, has been used by conservatives vigorously since 9/11 to smear anyone who disagreed with any of the Chimperor's so-called "anti-terrorist" policies, including this miserable failure of a war we started last year.
"I am tired answering this question because the argument that a law against abortion would be cruel to women is an appeal to pity and not relevant.
Septeus, in case you hadn't realized, laws such as the anti-abortion laws you favor would affect quite a few people's lives in very significant ways. When legislatures pass any such laws, the examine those effects very closely. Considering the impact a law would have on a person whose behavior is most likely to be criminalized by that law may be an "appeal to pity" but whether the law relates to allowing minors to be executed for certain crimes or allowing women to be executed for certain crimes does not affect the garvity of those considerations. Do you understand, Septeus? It doesn't matter whether you or any other "pro-lifer" is "tired" of these "appeals to pity." You can never have an anti-abortion law in this country without addressing the issues.
Judging from the lack of substantial content in your reply, I'm going to assume that you have no interest in how women will be affected by the law because, at some level, you believe the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the woman. Is my assumption about your opinion wrong?
"Wow a textbook example of example of the Strawman. You're so kind. Changing my clear subject of a collective to the personal."
Don't be a jerk, Septeus. You were lumping me in with your "secular humanist" boogeymen and you know it. Those boogeymen are your strawmen. I'm not interested in defending them because I am not aware of any serious organization, e.g., "Secular Humanists U.S.A." which goes around lobbying Congress to change laws banning religious expression in this country. As always, let me know if I wrong, Septeus.
"As if all this Christianity in American just started recently and that's why you are so intolerant of this sudden wave of religious zealotry. Who's hating America now?"
Again, I love America. What I hate is seeing a group of people (the majority of Americans in this case) trying to legislate in violation of the Constitution and trying to AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to enshrine their views. The great thing about our Framers is that, based on their own experiences in England, they anticipated this problem. Not only do they have the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment, they made it very difficult for a religious majority to alter the Constitution by amendment.
"If you think that the public's acceptance for Christian or Jewish religious ideas and display is higher than that of 50 years ago then I suggest that you seek help on learning how to read."
Are you saying that you support legislation to stop the erosion of THE PUBLIC's acceptance for Christian or Jewish religious ideas? Besides, why should our legislatures care more about those ideas than about Islamic, Hindu, Jainist, Buddhist, Taoist, agnostic and atheist ideas? Is this where you start spouting off about how our country was founded on "Judeo-Christian" principles again? Too bad the framers forgot to mention that under no circumstances could the President, Congress and Supreme Court all be non-Christian or mostly non-Christian.
"Ever heard of Communism moron? I guess I must have imagined that group of secular humanists was bent on the global sprend of Communism?"
Of course I've heard of Communism. I don't want this country to be communist any more than you do. On the other hand, I think a belief that this country is in "danger" of being "taken over" by Communists is just a tad irrational. I am aware that this was a major concern of certain parts of our government for a while back in the early 40s, but history has not been particularly kind to all of those people (although I'm sure there are many websites which continue to laud "heroes" like McCarthy et al.).
But let's look again at that voiceless and long-suffering Christian and Jewish supermajority, shall we?? Perhaps, Septeus, you have heard of the Pledge of Allegience? During the Eisenhour administration it was unanimously amended by our Christian congress to include the words "Under God" and children were forced to recite it in some schools until someone finally stepped up the plate and reminded them of the Establishment Clause. Are you so greatly concerned Septeus that the pledge "amendment" passed UNANIMOUSLY back in 1954 but would find support today from, oh, let's estimate "only" 99.5% of Congress (and 100% of the Executive Branch)?
Also, I find it ironic that I have been called a "troll". I'm making an honest effort at an argument. I'd like to see what you THINK, Septeus, about the FACTS I recite, not what you think about this mysterious "agenda" of some ambiguously labeled group of people who have a different opinion than you. Let me know if I've got my facts wrong at least before you attack me as a troll, or if my logic is faulty.
I've just told you WHY I think you don't have a strong basis for believing that the rights of Christians are being taken away. Now tell me WHY you think they are. Give me some numbers, examples of laws which you believe are unconstitutional and WHY. But please save your conspiracy theories for the real trolls who just come in here and tell Christians to go screw themselves.
"There are SOME groups of "secular humanists" who are trying to legally define the right of religious expression out of existance"
Bearing in mind that this "right of religious expression" you refer to has been limited by First Amendment considerations since the beginning of the country (as other speech is, but religious speech must also avoid entanglement with the government), please name ONE "secular humanist" group which is trying to take away your right to, e.g., attend the church of your choice. Alternatively, define "out of existence" if banning churches doesn't fall within the scope of what you allege these groups are trying to ban.
Quote: The "hating America" line, as you should know, has been used by conservatives vigorously since 9/11 to smear anyone who disagreed with any of the Chimperor's so-called "anti-terrorist" policies, including this miserable failure of a war we started last year.
Chimperor! I suppose you think that's funny Mr. Troll. That last post proves you are trolling and anyone that continues to respond to you is just feeding the beast.
"Chimperor! I suppose you think that's funny Mr. Troll. That last post proves you are trolling and anyone that continues to respond to you is just feeding the beast."
I do think The Chimperor is hilarious. I didn't realize that everyone who thinks our President is incompetent is considered a troll here. Is it necessary that all Christians hold the same opinion regarding W as you do, Septeus? Had John McCain been nominated and elected instead of Bushie, we might be having a different conversation. He seems to be able to speak effectively and thoughtfully without rehearsal or having someone nearby to hold his hand.
What your last post proves is that you would rather call me names than offer any factual support or explanation for your opinions. THAT is what trolls do, Septeus, and it's certain not a very Christian attitude to take. As I recall, Jesus encouraged questioning the status quo and not blindly parroting the views of leaders elected by the masses (or elected by the Supreme Court, in the present case).
I think that unbridled, vitriolic outbursts do not represent any reasonable worldview well. Why have a golden rule (as many reasonable worldviews do) unless you are willing to follow it? I am embarrassed by people who support my worldview and represent it poorly. I wouldn't be surprised if many Christians were quietly wishing Septeus7 would adopt a more civil tone.
When death is worshipped as it is in most all countries of the world, death is given.
When people refuse the LIFE who created them, they naturally range under the banner of death.
So sad to see for countries that used to know what that LIFE was.
Hey Daniel,
I think you could benefit from some of my daddy's wisdom:
"God gave you a brain. Why don't you use it?"
Good luck.
Rob said: I think that unbridled, vitriolic outbursts do not represent any reasonable worldview well
I guess calling our president a dehumanizing name like chimperor doesn't count as an unbridle, vitriolic outbrust only challenging someone on that is a vitriolic outbrust.
I am calling Glen a troll because he repeatly makes offensive and grossly incorrect statements that are intended to upset the people on this board and does not contribute the quality of the comment section. If Glen wants to say our the President is incompetent he should say the President is incompetent not compare him to a tyrant or an animal.
If Glen wants to incite a flame war he should go back to Use-Net or AOL Chat. Going to Christian blogs and bashing Christian values using old liberal slogans, calling that anyone who disagrees with him hateful of America and accusing them of trying to destroy the Constitution is Trolling with a capitol T.
Lastly Rob, where did I respond in a unbridled and vitriolic outburst? If you can find one I will apologize for it (and don't say that calling Glen a Troll is unbridled and vitriolic).
Just out of curiosity, is the poster's name above pronounced "Byorn Again "?
"I guess calling our president a dehumanizing name like chimperor doesn't count as an unbridle, vitriolic outbrust only challenging someone on that is a vitriolic outbrust."
Chimperor is dehumanizing? What about "Stretch"? Is that dehumanizing? It's a darn nickname, for jeebus sakes. He's the PRESIDENT of A COUNTRY not a GOD Septeus. I think he's been an AWFUL president and calling him Chimperor is a HUMOROUS way of expressing my extreme frustration with the man. Get over it. I guarantee you that Bush has been called a lot of things way way worse than that to his face and he's smart enough to let it roll.
"I am calling Glen a troll because he repeatly makes offensive and grossly incorrect statements that are intended to upset the people on this board and does not contribute the quality of the comment section."
Please point out one grossly incorrect statement I have made, Septeus. I would appreciate that.
Regarding my "intent" to "upset" the people on this board, that's a bit much. Surely if intended to "upset" anyone I could do that more easily than be typing facts and hard questions. If by "upset" you mean "challenge," then you might be onto something, but I think I'm challenging myself as much or more than I'm challenging Joe Carter or you. As far as I can tell, only one or two people on this board are willing to actually engage in a discussion that isn't along the lines of "amen, brother." One of those people is Joe Carter. At the very least, he knows how to write a thought-provoking post.
"[Glen] does not contribute to the quality of the comment section"
Ridiculous. Define "quality."
"bashing Christian values using old liberal slogans, calling that anyone who disagrees with him hateful of America and accusing them of trying to destroy the Constitution is Trolling with a capitol T"
Switch liberal for Christian in the above sentence and you've described the tone of quite a few posts on this blog. My posts are as civil as the posts I am responding to, if not more (with the possible exception of silly names for President Bush for which I offer you my apologies). What's "unbridled and vitriolic" to you, Septeus, is my light sarcasm. I don't hate you. I ask you not to hate me. I'm just asking questions and frankly I'm a little disappointed at the answers I'm getting.
Its not fair for you to sit and complain, Septeus, about Christian views being shut out of the public arena while you simultaneously tell me that you don't want to hear ANY other views except those which confirm your existing beliefs! The fact is that not every person that disagrees with you or your minister or your President is a member of some secular humanist "movement". People deserve some consideration.
As a gesture to you, I'll cut out the Chimperor stuff for now. But if someone starts suggesting that the President or the War in Iraq can't be questioned or criticized lest national security be compromised, you can expect that this patriot will have something to say. If you have Biblical authority to back you up that criticizing the President is a sin, then now's the time to share that passage with us.
Septeus7: Perhaps "unbridled" overstates the case. "Repeated" would be better; you've referred to Glen Robinson as a troll no fewer than four times. I think "troll" and "chimperor" are roughly equivalent as dehumanizing terms, and I think both Glen Robinson and George W. Bush are sincere and view themselves as acting in good faith. "Ever heard of Communism moron?" does qualify as vitriol, as does responding to my sincere post by calling me a "big jerk". I am not seeking an apology, but your willingness to consider it speaks well of you. I'm not that offended; I realize that passions run high in discussions of politics and religion. What I'd really like is for you to respond to the point I made about religious freedom. I feel that we have it in abundance in America. I support this freedom, and I don't see how keeping the government out of religion threatens it. Separation protects both from mutual corruption. A government has no heart or soul; how can it have a religion? Legislate your morality, if you wish and you are able, but please don't establish your religion. That would divide us.
Alright, I am sorry that I called a Glen a moron and I apologize. I am also sorry that I called you Rob a big jerk and I apologize for that as well. However, the term "Troll" is a well recognized technical internet term and not dehumanizing given the context as most of Glen's posts where in fact "trolling." The term "Chimperor" is neither technical nor well recognized as technical and thus not the same as "troll."
Quote: What I'd really like is for you to respond to the point I made about religious freedom. I feel that we have it in abundance in America. I support this freedom, and I don't see how keeping the government out of religion threatens it.
I agree we have an abundance of religious freedom here in America. However that wasn't what claimed originally. Here is your original quote:
I am a secular humanist, but I'm unaware of our "hidden agenda". I must not have gotten the memo. I knew I shouldn't have missed the big conspirators meeting last month. :-) There is no hidden agenda. We don't want to take away your freedom of religion, and we don't want to impose a moral-free society on you good people.
In this quote you use the collective term "we" refering to all secular humanists and then state that the collective "don't want to take away your freedom of religion, and we don't want to impose a moral-free society on you good people." The facts are that SOME secular Humanist like communists and others do want to limit freedom of religion to a great degree.
The second part is even more incorrect and points out whats wrong with your extreme separationist argument. You say do don't want to impose a moral-free society but many of the "moral" positions that many of you humanists promote are in direct conflict which the Christian world view. Many of you want the government to "stop imposing morality" where the Christian world view would demand government action and the enforcement of just laws. Alan Keyes has made this point many times.
Your (secular humanism as a social movement)moral views about the role of government differ from the Christian view of the role of government and if the Atheist/Humanists view becomes the law in its entirety then the laws that are based on the Christian view would be become criminial and then society and its laws in the Christian view become moral-free to a certain degree from our view point. This is why I think that statement of yours was intellectly dishonest.
Quote: A government has no heart or soul; how can it have a religion? Legislate your morality, if you wish and you are able, but please don't establish your religion. That would divide us.
The problem is when we "legislate our morality" people like Glen accuse us of "establishing our religion" ( Glen's absurd argument that FMA would violate the first amendment being a prime example). In some ways Glenn is right that we are establishing certian religious and moral principles but we really can't have a total separation of our morality from our faith without denying it altogether and de facto embracing your morality.
This shouldn't a suprise. We have difference views on what we think society and government should be like and we both want the our group's ideas to become reality and no the other guy's ideas. Its called politics and you should admit that your group is just a political as mine and stop playing these passive-agressive games.
Today is Earth Day.
Celebrated with human sacrifice to Mother Gaia at every "Womyn's Reproductive Health Clinic".
Now why didn't Baal-Moloch think of that angle?
I think we are winding down to an understanding at last.
Septeus:
"Glen's absurd argument that FMA would violate the first amendment being a prime example . . ."
I don't think I ever said the FMA would violate the first amendment but if I did that would be incorrect, I think, because I don't believe that an amendment to the Constitution (properly written and properly passed) can violate the Constitution. In other words, an amendment to the Constitution, properly passed, is Constitutional per se.
That said, I do believe that amending our Constitution (the Constitution!!!) to limit government benefits of marriage to heterosexuals is an awful idea.
"if the Atheist/Humanists view becomes the law in its entirety then the laws that are based on the Christian view would be become criminal"
Do you have a current law in mind, Septeus, that is "based on the Christian view" but which would become criminal if "the Atheist/Humanists view becomes the law in its entirety" ?
Just fyi re: the diversity of Christian views wrt to the environment and our President:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/science/04/22/churches.bush/index.html
Septeus7: I appreciate both the conciliatory tone and the continued frankness of your last post. It's true we want different things of society and government, bur perhaps we aren't as far apart as you think.
I think there is a breakdown in communication somehow. When I say "we secular humanists", you assume I include people I don't think of as secular humanists. Communists are secular, to be sure, but communism in practice is wanting in terms of humanism. When I speak of humanism, I have in mind the principles put forth in the Humanist Manifesto. No communist government I am aware of has aspired to these principles. Oppression is antithetical to humanism. If you used "we Christians" in a similar context, I would not assume you meant to include nominally Christian but out-of-the-mainstream subgroups like Christian Reconstructionists, Mormons, Christian Scientists, and the K.K.K. If I suspected as much, I would ask for clarification. By the way, I am not going for any guilt by association here. All I'm suggesting the aforementioned groups have in common is that they are widely viewed as out of the mainstream.
A government which does not precisely reflect your morals, like our current system, is not amoral. A government dominated by humanists would not be amoral, either; humanism is a moral worldview. As a parent, I shudder to think of an amoral society. We are too close to that now. I am, and must be, constantly vigilant in protecting my children from the more pernicious influences of society.
As for your last paragraph, I think you humanists more credit for organization, involvement, and influence than they deserve. Some humanists are quite political, though, so I concede the point. I am not playing "passive-aggressive games"; my posts are genuine, if sometimes unclear, representations of my thoughts and feelings. Maybe I am genuinely passive-aggressive. If so, it is remarkable that my wife, who is quite forthcoming about my myriad flaws, has not brought it to my attention.
When I reflect upon the difficulty of imparting meaning in cold type, my appreciation of gifted writers, as well as my empathy for my writing students, is enhanced.
Quote:Do you have a current law in mind, Septeus, that is "based on the Christian view" but which would become criminal if "the Atheist/Humanists view becomes the law in its entirety" ?
Sure. The laws regarding of Abortion. Humanism's view of human life fundamentally conflicts with the Christian view of human life. Peter Singer has made many arguements that if you are a humanist you can't really avoid his conclusions. If you can't avoid Singer's view then what can stop Humanism from leading to the conclusions (yes there are at least two) that was so brilliantly imagined and described in Huxely's "Brave New World."
Quote: A government dominated by humanists would not be amoral, either; humanism is a moral worldview.
I didn't say that a society dominated by humanists would be amoral. I said a soceity dominated by humanist ideas would be de facto amoral as far Christian morality is concerned. You should read "Brave New World" to see humanism's best possible conclusion. If you are truly consistant in your humanist viewpoint you will admit that you have no real problems with the "Brave New World."
Septeus7: I have read Brave New World; I teach British Literature. Some misapplied humanism is present in the society depicted by Huxley (who was an atheist, by the way). The author's intent was to warn the reader of the dangers of technological advance and mass conformity along the lines of what was happening in Europe at the time he wrote it; it was not anti-humanist.
Find me a humanist who considers love obsolete and sneers at the idea of naturally-produced offspring raised by their natural parents. Maybe then we will have something to discuss. Brave New World is not about humanism, and it certainly isn't its "best possible conclusion". It is really a worst-case scenario, and was intended to be. The Humanist Manifesto, however, is about humanism, and it can be found on the internet and read in minutes. Read it if you want to know what I mean when I use the term.
Mustapha Mond and the World State don't represent humanism much better than Stalin and the Soviet Union. I don't know who you are reading or listening to that is demonizing humanists and giving you such a warped view of their ideas, but you need to evaluate your sources. Such misinformation is frightening and dangerous. Just a couple of years back Falwell blamed 9/11 on secular humanists, among others. I thought it was the work of Muslim extremists incensed by our nation's Mideast policy.
I wouldn't go to a humanist to learn about Christianity. The reverse holds as well.
Septeus
"I said a soceity dominated by humanist ideas would be de facto amoral as far Christian morality is concerned."
Septeus, you equate morality with Christianity and it's rather insulting to the billions of non-Christians in the world and ignores the fact that many wise men arrived independently at many of Jesus' ethical teachings long before Jesus presented them to his apostles and others. Am I amoral if I treat you as I would like to be treated, don't kill you, don't steal from you, don't lie to you, turn the other cheek when you hurt me, forgive you for your trespassers etc. because I believe that if everyone acted that way, everyone's life would be more fulfilling?
"You should read "Brave New World" to see humanism's best possible conclusion."
Septeus I hope that you are kidding us. What Huxley is showing us in Brave New World is what happens when scientific discoveries are abused in the pursuit of nationalist goals, e.g., economic strength as measured by efficiency in the workplace and the DEHUMANIZATION of workers, and also what happens when the boundaries between nationalism and religion are blurred by those in power.
This latter point should not have escaped your attention, Septeus, as you seem to get very excited by my suggestion that the boundary in this country has ceased to exist for all practical purposes.
In that regard, if you want to learn about patriotism taken to its "best possible conclusion," I highly recommend reading the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.
My response to Glen:
Quote: you equate morality with Christianity and it's rather insulting to the billions of non-Christians in the world and ignores the fact that many wise men arrived independently at many of Jesus' ethical teachings long before Jesus presented them to his apostles and others.
Interesting but irrelevant.
Quote: Am I amoral if I treat you as I would like to be treated, don't kill you, don't steal from you, don't lie to you, turn the other cheek when you hurt me, forgive you for your trespassers etc.
Depends why you do those things. If a sociopath happens to treat you according to the Golden Rule and is nice, is he any less of a sociopath? You can act "morally" without acting in regards to morality. If you never act in regards to morality then you are amoral by definition this is because being moral is a quality of being not of only of doing. Doing can be the result of being or not. This post shows exactly whats wrong with your conception of morality. Morality isn't descriptive. Morality is prescriptive.
Quote: and also what happens when the boundaries between nationalism and religion are blurred by those in power.
That statement proves you haven't read the book. Where in the book is religion is part of public practice? The only place is in the Savage's Village and not the Brave New World.
My response to Rob.
Quote: I have read Brave New World; I teach British Literature.
Well, I read the book about 5 times and I'm going to start reading it again. Its my favorite book so don't think that being a Prof is going to help you.
Quote: Some misapplied humanism is present in the society depicted by Huxley (who was an atheist, by the way).
First, how is it misapplied? On what basis can you say that the Brave New World is evil? Second, I know Huxley was an atheist which why I like using his book. You can't accuse him of being a religious fanatic.
Quote: The author's intent was to warn the reader of the dangers of technological advance and mass conformity along the lines of what was happening in Europe at the time he wrote it; it was not anti-humanist.
1. Wrong! It was not intended to be anti-humanist but the book's insight exceeds the author's intent becomes a sailient challenge to humanism.
2. Its true that technology and mass conformity are strong themes in the book but those are only the surface. The descriptions of the humans in the Brave New World and the nature of their social relationships and rituals are much stronger and more important than the evils of technology and mass production. Thats why there is far more focus on sex, drugs and psychological conditioning than on the mechanisms of individual technologies.
Quote: Find me a humanist who considers love obsolete and sneers at the idea of naturally-produced offspring raised by their natural parents.
Try the entire homosexual "Marriage" movement, fertility doctors, and folks in the biotech community, and many many more. Practically every Prof I had in college laughed at the traditional idea of natural Parents. You must be totally blind to ask me that question. The foundations of the Brave New World are already here and you are just to conditioned to see it. But that is to be expected of someone who works at one of the conditioning centers.
Quote: I don't know who you are reading or listening to that is demonizing humanists and giving you such a warped view of their ideas, but you need to evaluate your sources.
I'm reading Huxely, Dewy, Rand, Singer and many liberal and secular libertarian blogs. I am just pressing their logic to its eventual end.
Quote: Such misinformation is frightening and dangerous. Just a couple of years back Falwell blamed 9/11 on secular humanists, among others. I thought it was the work of Muslim extremists incensed by our nation's Mideast policy.
You couldn't resist could you. You had to bring up Falwell as if anyone cares nowadays. Shall I talk about Andy Rooney next? It would be equally irrelevant.
Quote: I wouldn't go to a humanist to learn about Christianity.
Why? A lot of humanists understand Christianity better than a lot Christians.
Septeus,
How about just answering the question I asked you instead of cutting in half and turning into a hypothetical. Here's the question:
"Am I amoral if I treat you as I would like to be treated, don't kill you, don't steal from you, don't lie to you, turn the other cheek when you hurt me, forgive you for your trespassers etc. because I believe that if everyone acted that way, everyone's life would be more fulfilling?"
Also, Septeus, you'll recall that I said that Brave New World discussed what happens when "the boundaries between nationalism and religion are blurred by those in power."
You responded by mocking me, saying that I had not read the book. Well, I have read the book. This time when you read the book count how many times the Capital T is present where a cross might be present today, and how many times "Ford" is referred to where "God" might be referred to today. Ford is the symbol, literally, for the Brave New World, and also metaphorically, for the other reasons I discussed above.
"Practically every Prof I had in college laughed at the traditional idea of natural Parents. You must be totally blind to ask me that question."
You know, Septeus, we already discussed above what an ignorant jerk you are and how you enjoy making broad unsubstantiated statements but refuse to acknowledge when you've been called on your bullsh*t. So here's another. You expect us to believe that your professors "laughed at the traditional idea of natural parents"? In what context? I went to one of the most "liberal" schools in the country and can't recall any professor "laughing" at the traditional "idea" of natural parents. This kind of baloney reveals the depth of your paranoia and confusion. I suppose those same professors "laughed" at the traditional idea of going to church, too, and maybe also at the traditional idea of attending school?
O.K., Septeus7; we have both read Brave New World several times, and we perceive its message differently. Why am I not surprised? Nor am I surprised that you seem to prefer fiction to science and history in drawing conclusions about that of which you choose to remain ignorant. I suspect that you read whatever you think will support the convoluted logic you use to condemn anyone who disagrees with you. What you want to believe you read into that which you read.
Your post has one grain of truth: many humanists do know a great deal about Christianity. Most humanists probably come from Christian backgrounds. My point in my previous post, which you seem to have missed, is that one might not expect a Christian to represent humanism fairly, just as one might not expect a humanist to represent Christianity fairly. Adherents to any particular dogma may be inclined to misrepresent competing dogma.
Your characterization of public schools as "conditioning centers" would be amusing were it not sadly revealing of your mindset. Ninety-five percent of the teachers and administrators in my school system are Baptists; they certainly aren't subverting the dominant paradigm. What do you have against public schools? Do you fear that our children may actually learn math, science, history, and English? Do you resent that your tax dollars are not spent indoctrinating children into your religion? I am weary of your self-righteous paranoia.
Your calling me "blind" is a manifestation of what psychologists term projection. On the basis of our recent exchanges I can only infer that it is your perception that is wanting, not mine. I had hoped that at long last we could establish enough common ground for a meaningful dialog, but you are too entrenched and willfully misinformed for that to be possible. Apart from some moderately enjoyable rhetorical exercise, it appears we have been wasting our time.
Quote from Glen: This time when you read the book count how many times the Capital T is present where a cross might be present today, and how many times "Ford" is referred to where "God" might be referred to today. Ford is the symbol, literally, for the Brave New World, and also metaphorically, for the other reasons I discussed above.
I think you are really stretching to say that the use of the word "Ford" and the Capital T consistitute actual religion. Its a false substitute like many things in the Brave New World.
Quote from Glen: Septeus, we already discussed above what an ignorant jerk you are and how you enjoy making broad unsubstantiated statements but refuse to acknowledge when you've been called on your bullsh*t.
Let's the flaming and personal attacks begin. All this means your losing the argument rather than dealing with my arguments. I sensed much troll in you from beginning and now I been have vindicated.
Quote: You expect us to believe that your professors "laughed at the traditional idea of natural parents"? In what context?
The purpose, function, and meaning of family in society.
Quote: I suppose those same professors "laughed" at the traditional idea of going to church, too
They didn't exactly think it was cool. Do you find that shocking?
Quote from Rob:O.K., Septeus7; we have both read Brave New World several times, and we perceive its message differently. Why am I not surprised?
I think Brave New is about a secular society and its people and you seem to think its about the evil of machines and religion. I guess because you the literature Prof. we all defer to you rather than actually discuss the contents of the book.
Quote: Nor am I surprised that you seem to prefer fiction to science and history in drawing conclusions about that of which you choose to remain ignorant.
Oh goody, I'm getting flamed. Personal Attacks always make for great arguements. Remind me again of I am ignorant of? The religious conspiracy to take over America? The glories of the Humanist Manifesto? I have read Humanist Manifestos I and II (I had actually read them many years ago but thanks to you I have reread them) . I don't see how you can say that they are closer to Christian idealogy than to Marxism. Frankly, I found the Manifesto disturbing and if you would like to discuss its tenants I would be more than happy to discuss them.
Quote: I suspect that you read whatever you think will support the convoluted logic you use to condemn anyone who disagrees with you. What you want to believe you read into that which you read.
Blah, Blah, Blah....flame, you are so narrow minded...personal attack...I got lots of the that in College. What are you going to do now? Say I'm disrupting the class with my questions? Have the Dean spend my parents nasty letters? Unfortunately for you this is the internet and those intimediation tactics don't apply.
Quote: What do you have against public schools? Do you fear that our children may actually learn math, science, history, and English?
What I have against public schools is that our children don't actually learn math,science,history, and English in them. At least not very well considering the amount of money poured into them. I also don't like the authoritarian structure and groupthink found in College which is used to bully students.
Quote: Your calling me "blind" is a manifestation of what psychologists term projection. On the basis of our recent exchanges I can only infer that it is your perception that is wanting, not mine. I had hoped that at long last we could establish enough common ground for a meaningful dialog, but you are too entrenched and willfully misinformed for that to be possible.
Translated: I don't want to deal with the arguement that many secularists think the notion of "traditional family" is outdated so I'll climb on my high horse and say since my opponent's opinion still differs from mine so he is clearly a dangerous fanatic.
Quote: Your characterization of public schools as "conditioning centers" would be amusing were it not sadly revealing of your mindset.
Yes it certainly reveals my mindset. One of truth telling. The fact is that schools do condition children to behave a certain ways and expect certain things in their relationships to society. The schools are part of our social conditioning for our children. Its not necessarily a bad thing and not a necessarily a good thing. It is just a fact.
Septius7: Perhaps you are right. Your last post is certainly an indictment of our schools.
I would be glad to discuss the "tenants" of humanism with you if you think you could put up with my "intimediation" tactics.
As for your supposed vindication: as you may recall, you opened our dialog by characterizing me as a "big jerk". You later apologized, giving me some hope with regard to your reason and good faith. You wasted no time, however, in dashing these hopes. I have not flamed you at all. On the contrary, I've been quite patient. When there's an elephant in the room, one can ignore it and tiptoe around it for a while, but sooner or later one must say, "Damn! Look at that elephant!"
I don't know about you, Glen, but I think I'm finished on this thread. I'm wasting words.