Welcome to America, where a message of tolerance has corporations shaking in their boots.
All three major networks refused a commercial for the United Church of Christ–one that featured two bouncers refusing admission to (among others) two men who one assumes were supposed to be gay. They weren’t skipping or fondling one another, and one of them wasn’t wearing a wedding dress. And the announcer’s voice said, “No matter who you are or where are on life’s journey, you’re welcome here.”
ABC refused it because they don’t air religious ads (although dramas with nudity and profanity, that’s okay.) And CBS and NBC were skittish over the notion of advocating the notion that Jesus might accept gays (which is a hoot coming from the network that airs “Will and Grace.” Apparently it’s okay to laugh at gay men; just not accept them as people in the name of the Christian Messiah.)
This is, unfortunately, one of the results of Conservatism: Fear. Fear of rocking the boat. Fear of reprisal. Fear of gay rights. Fear of change. It’s one of the reasons Bush is successful: In a country still walking on eggshells since 9/11, he speaks fluent fear (indeed, his command of it surpasses his grasp of English.)
You just have to wonder how far this country has fallen when a simple message of tolerance and acceptance inspires fear of reprisal from those who preach intolerance and segregation. And how much further yet we can fall.
PAD
• 
My question, Roger, is this: Is it possible, in your opinion, that the abuse could have happened without any actual order from Washington to torture the prisoners? That policy set up the environment — and Washington should have known better — but that it is possible that the abuse was not by command from a true higher up?
Yes, I think it’s possible. It may have been even probable in this case…but that doesn’t absolve the Administration from blame and responsibility for this case (talk about undercutting your own political goals–in my book, if you go to Iraq, you had better dámņ well do it right).
There’s plenty of blame to go around on this. The individual abusers involved most certainly should get their share…but the administration has to take responsibility for their share as well (and I’m not so sure that they think they have any).
I have a relative who was a guard at a military base and then at a local, county jail. Even though he had strong moral beliefs, I could see how that environment would degrade both the prisoner and the prison guard. And that was in a far more structured situation than Iraq.
I would hope the military and others would learn from this, but given human nature, I am not so sure they will.
Jim in Iowa
i would posit that not only is the zimbardo experiment applicable to Abu Ghraib and other prisons, but also the Milgram experiment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment
Milgram Experiment
in this case, the soldiers, yielding to the perceived authority of the Military Intelligence personnel/civilain contractors, would therefore become increasingly tractable to committing worse and worse acts of cruelty upon the prisoners.
Jim, sad to say, if we (humans) haven’t learned our lessons about cruelty to prisoners over the last 5000 years, we aren’t about to now.
The last 4 years have really made me wonder why schools even bother to teach history? I was told all along the way that one of the points about history was to learn from the mistakes made in the past, to avoid repeating them. Guess there were a whole lotta folks absent on those days….
Jim, sad to say, if we (humans) haven’t learned our lessons about cruelty to prisoners over the last 5000 years, we aren’t about to now.
Not many on this site like my view, but I think it is a result of sinful human nature. There is hope, and things can change, but it comes from a supernatural source. But since that is a religious point of view, I guess it can’t be true . . .
Jim in Iowa
Craig says:
“IMO, I believe it is possible, but I still believe that heads should roll from those in charge of these soldiers, all the way back to the Pentagon and White House.”
“It’s called Chain of Command, and those above and responsible for those below, regardless.”
By that reasoning, FDR should have had his head on a platter. I have a photo, which I found while researching a chapter of a book on teaching about propaganda, that shows Roosevelt with a letter opener fashioned from the leg bone of a dead Japanese soldier, sent to him by GIs.
I believe it was said that FDR disapproved of the practice of defiling the dead but it is significant that the photo got out (I think it was published in LIFE without any hint of censure in the comments).
You can also find on the net actual photos of American soldiers slaughtering unarmed SS guards at one of the death camps. A clear violation of pretty much every convention but one I would hardly have given FDR the boot over.
>>Jim, sad to say, if we (humans) haven’t learned our lessons about cruelty to prisoners over the last 5000 years, we aren’t about to now.
>Not many on this site like my view, but I think it is a result of sinful human nature. There is hope, and things can change, but it comes from a supernatural source. But since that is a religious point of view, I guess it can’t be true . . .
I son’t know that it can’t be true, but it certainly won’t ever be realized unless prayer is assisted by a change in human behavior. Too many who ascribe to the former, neglect to challenge themselves with the later.
Fred
A clear violation of pretty much every convention but one I would hardly have given FDR the boot over.
No, but FDR didn’t try and convince the world that we have the right to ignore the Geneva Conventions either, as Bush as done.
Has ANYBODY other than the individual soldiers been tried for anything? or negligence in their duties?
Which just goes to show that, behind closed doors, the Bush Administration just doesn’t care. They already don’t care about the Geneva Conventions, knowing that would we intended to do to some of these prisoners (guilty or otherwise) would violate those rules of war.
“Has ANYBODY other than the individual soldiers been tried for anything? or negligence in their duties?”
You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried. Have you that evidence?
Now, doesn’t the fact that the soldiers in WW2 who mutilated dead bodies and sent the pieces to the president were never even reprimanded for this deed mean that FDR was also not terribly concerned with the Geneva Conventions? Perhaps even LESS concerned than you believe Bush to be?
Jim, I hope that some higher power comes down and starts enlightening humans. Would really be nice.
What concerns me are when people I know (and who don’t participate on PAD’s Blog and Board…there’s a name for a pub is ever I heard one) who are very spiritual start supporting the preemptive military action in Iraq. Their church issued a political aid/guide for the elections, and it stated essentially that the “turn the other cheek” thing was just for individuals, and that gov’t was still armed with the sword of justice. So essentially it was OK for the gov’t to go out and kill people in the name of Justice. Even innocents.
but before I get too caught up in all that, it’s the way they talk about actions that they know will result in the deaths of other peole. Some guilty, a lot more innocent. As a person of faith myself, I’m terribly torn over the desire to act to protect myself and my loved ones, and the abhorrent feeling I get when I know that innocent people are dieing in the name of American safety right now.
I see very little of that in some very Christian people, and it makes we think that some of the Flock have really wandered away from the Shepherd.
While the leg bone letter opener is down-right creepy, WW2 was also a completely different time, hëll, you could even say it was a different world from what we have today.
Plus, FDR had just one a war that America DIDN’T START, And he pulled this country OUT of a depression. Unlike GWShrub who launched a war of agression against a country that was no threat to American soil and is on the verge of triggering another depression…
I think comparing these two incidents may be apples to oranges. In the heat of battle or the immediate aftermath, things do happen in the field that nobody in the top of the chain of command has any control over. But a prison is supposedly a more controlled environment. Whether they specifically ordered the abuse or not, Bush and Cheney clearly set a tone that Geneva conventions were “quaint” and the traditional rules of dealing with prisoners of war did not apply.
Now, we can split hairs all day on whether all of the prisoners held in Abu Graib and GetMo fit the definition of POWs, but common decency and humanity should have prevailed.
I am going to reiterate that responsibility on the part of the higher ups does not refer to merely “ordering abuse and torture.” I fault them entirely for the lack of oversight, the lack of preparedness and the lack of personnel that was needed to police a country that was invaded.
It’s something that would demand a lower lovel of repercussions, but I believe some sort of consequences are appropriate because the results were both a) unnecessary and b) foreseeable.
You need compelling evidence that people other than the individual soldiers DESERVE to be tried.
So, in your opinion, commanders are no longer responsible for the actions of their soldiers?
That ignorance is excusable in the face of human rights violations?
Man, wouldn’t they have loved that excuse at something like the Nuremburg Trials.
I [don’t] know that it can’t be true, but it certainly won’t ever be realized unless prayer is assisted by a change in human behavior. Too many who ascribe to the former, neglect to challenge themselves with the later.
I would agree. As John Kerry was ironically fond of quoting, “Faith without works is dead.” Or as Jesus said in Matthew 7, it doesn’t matter if you “call” him Lord if you don’t take care of the sick, the naked, and yes, the prisoner (and it does not say it does not apply to the worst of prisoners). I don’t believe works can “save” someone, but saying you have “faith” is useless if it doesn’t change how you treat others.
I am going to reiterate that responsibility on the part of the higher ups does not refer to merely “ordering abuse and torture.” I fault them entirely for the lack of oversight, the lack of preparedness and the lack of personnel that was needed to police a country that was invaded.
I would agree. It is always easy to see things in hindsight, but in regards to the prison, there were things that clearly should have been done better.
Jim in Iowa
As John Kerry was ironically fond of quoting, “Faith without works is dead.”
Now, why do you call that ironic? I know how much many republicans love to portray democrats as militant anti-christian atheists, but Kerry has always been open about his faith and his spirituality. He may not agree with some of your interpretations of scripture, but that does not mean that his religious beliefs are any less sincere.
Gee, today we’ve had references to both the Stanford Prison Experiment and Milgram’s research on conformity…
Why are all the best psychological experiments the ones that would be considered grossly unethical today? 🙂
but there seem to be tolerance for EVERY religion BUT Christianity.
“Well, it’s the Christians trying to force their views upon everybody else.
Case in point: the Bush Administration is pushing the Supreme Court to rule in favor of allowing the Ten Commanedments to be displayed on government property.
Makes you wonder, doesn’t it?”
It certainly makes me wonder at what point the Ten Commandments became the property of Christianity, what with the fact that the Commandments were handed to a Jew to be shared with other Jews.
But I agree, I’m tired of hearing the wheeze about how the poor, tragic Christians aren’t being tolerated. I mean, my God, they’re running the dámņëd country and the government shuts down on their major holidays, which is more than can be said for any other religion around. What more do they want? So between that and the simple fact that no one can touch the Christian right when it comes to historic intolerance for other creeds, persuasions and beliefs, I don’t know what the hëll this “O, we poor Christians, no one loves us, boo hoo” business is about.
PAD
Now, why do you call that ironic?
Specifically, because during one of the debates he basically said that while he was against abortion personally, he supported a woman’s right to choose. For some on this site, that is not a problem. I pesonally see it as ironic and an example of where someone’s beliefs are meaningless if they don’t have an impact on how he votes. Not trying to resurrect the debate on the issue(s), just explaining why I pesonally found it ironic.
Jim in Iowa
PAD,
I have a question, and apologize because it is personal. Are you under more stress than normal? I am not trying to be funny, I am just wondering. You appear to be more on edge, and I am not sure the elections alone explain it.
While we may disagree on quite a few things, I respect you and would hope you are able to enjoy life and the current holiday season. I certainly hope you keep writing for a long time since you bring enjoyment into my own life, whether through New Frontiers or through Madrox, etc.
You can answer via email (the one I list is real), or on this site, or not at all. If everything is fine, then just ignore this. I was just wondering.
Jim in Iowa
You know, you could make a strong case for the idea that no man should ever make a judgement on the abortion issue, because in most ways it’s a strictly feminine issue.
As a male, I believe that the only real option is to support a woman’s right to choose.
Note: Don’t take that to mean that I don’t support father’s rights, because I think that they should have a say in the matter, but by and large it’s a feminine issue.
Jeff,
I would agree that if it could be shown that the unborn child is not “alive” or “human” anymore than an appendix is alive or human, your point would be true. Until then, I personally believe that the unborn child’s rights trump either the mother or the father.
Kerry, in an interview, specifically said that he believed life began at conception. So he said he accepted my premise, that the unborn child is more than just a lump of tissue. That is why I find his position inconsistent. For those who don’t agree with my premise, I can very much understand why they would hold the same position as you do.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
I know I argue fine points some times, but I don’t think I’m splitting hairs here.
(moderator) “Q: Some Catholic archbishops said that it would be a sin to vote for a candidate like you because you support a woman’s right to choose an abortion and unlimited stem-cell research. What is your reaction to that? “
(Senator Kerry) “A: I completely respect their views. I am a Catholic. And I grew up learning how to respect those views. But I disagree with them, as do many. I can’t legislate or transfer to another American citizen my article of faith. What is an article of faith for me is not something that I can legislate on somebody who doesn’t share that article of faith. I believe that choice is a woman’s choice. It’s between a woman, God and her doctor. That’s why I support that. I will not allow somebody to come in and change Roe v. Wade. “
Source: Third Bush-Kerry debate, in Tempe AZ Oct 13, 2004
There’s another quote from Kerry about Supreme Court Judges, and how he wouldn’t have appointed anyone likely to overturn rights (Roe v Wade) previously found to be Constitutional rights.
Not sure if that changes your mind on whether you find Kerry’s statements ironic, and I share your aversion to bringing this topic up again. But I do feel that if you’re going to attribute statements to someone (like Al Gore inventing the internet) you may as well get the quote from the horse’s mouth. Err, no pun intended…..
Check out http://www.hellomagazine.com/celebrities/2004/12/07/nativityscene/
which features Madame Tussaud’s (London) celebrity Nativity scene featuring the Beckhams as Mary and Joseph; W, Tony Blair, and Prince Phillip as the Wise Men; Samuel Jackson, Hugh Grant, and Graham Norton as shepherds; and Kylie Minogue as the Angel of the Lord.
I wonder how well something like this would go over on this side of the pond. Not very, I’d wager.
Sasha,
More than a few voices of discount with that display over there, according to last night’s NBC news report.
Fred
Oh, fine, lemme go on.
I don’t see it as inconsistant with my religious views to find abortion to be murder, but at the same time, not try to force others to reach that decision. To be honest, I don’t really know all that the “sanctity of life” entails. What I do know is that, given the way our science is going, we may honestly be able to say, someday, that each and every living cell from our body could one day become a full grown living human being. Cloning, and now stem cell research, could take us there.
So, given the fuzzy future for human reproduction, I really don’t know where to draw the abortion line. None at all? Only in medically required cases, or in the case of rape? Never past 8 weeks? I really don’t know.
I think the point of Kerry’s position is that our Constitution guarantees certain rights, and as long as the right to privacy includes control over our bodies, he’s not going to support any act, by the government, that would infringe on that right. He’s going to support Roe v. Wade.
And RvW did not guarantee an inalienable right to privacy for a woman concerning abortion. There’s actually very strong language in RvW that sets out how the state could regulate abortion. In fact, with careful wording, the state could pretty much ban all abortions other than those medically necessary for the health of the mother. They might even be able to ban abortions in the case of rape or incest, if they wanted to.
Kingbobb,
I disagree with his logic. This is not just a matter of faith, such as saying there is a “Trinity” or that the Bible is the Word of God. This is dealing with actual social behavior in the real world.
He is right that I cannot force someone to believe the Bible is true, or that the Bible says life begins at conception, etc. And I would never try to do so by legal means. But from a moral standpoint, I have a problem with saying that what would be a life or death action is simply a matter of personal faith.
Case in point (which, I am sure, will get me into trouble! :-0 ): Some faiths believe that a blood transfusion is wrong, against God’s will, etc. What do you do when a child will die without a blood transfusion? Whatever your answer, this is similar to the dilemna about abortion. The position has true, immediate, real world, life and death implications.
As I added in a second post, Kerry was quoted in an interview as saying he believes life begins at conception. If that is true, then it does not make sense to me that he would say it is just a matter of “faith,” especially when you are dealing with an innocent, helpless life.
Obviously he has thought this through and come to a different conclusion. I don’t understand it, but I know many on this site don’t understand my positions! But from my perspective, Kerry’s actions do not match what he claims to believe (namely, that life begins at conception).
Jim in Iowa
A few things to consider.
Kerry feels that abortion is wrong. However, Kerry also knows that millions of Americans are not of the same religion as him, and don’t necessarily share those same views. Kerry doesn’t feel that he can legislate his religious views onto others, therefore he is anti-abrtion yet pro-choice. I see no conflict here. Just because you personally believe something based on a religious context doesn’t allow for you to legislate that for others. If it did, I could draft a law requiring all citizens to clothe themselves in giant hankerchiefs to await the coming of the great green arkleseizure.
Also, The rights of the actual must always trump the rights of the potential.
Im sorry, but I’ll always fight for the rights of the mother to control her own body over the rights of her potential child.
If you want to tell, let’s say, a woman who needs a heart transplant who is also 3 days pregnant that the rights of the mass of cells within her, not yet 50 cells, that the blastocyst’s rights trump her right to get the heart and live, you go ahead.
I remain staunchly pro-choice.
In fact, with careful wording, the state could pretty much ban all abortions other than those medically necessary for the health of the mother. They might even be able to ban abortions in the case of rape or incest, if they wanted to.
In practice, this has not been the case. A lot of laws have been struck down for reasons other than the health of the mother. Take partial birth abortion. There was NO medical evidence that a partial birth abortion was ever necessary to save the life of a mother. The court even acknowledged this fact and still ruled the law unconstitutional.
Jim in Iowa
If you want to tell, let’s say, a woman who needs a heart transplant who is also 3 days pregnant that the rights of the mass of cells within her, not yet 50 cells, that the blastocyst’s rights trump her right to get the heart and live, you go ahead.
Virtually anyone who is pro-life also believes that the life of the mother comes first if you have to make an actual choice between the two. That is a very well established fact.
Just because you personally believe something based on a religious context doesn’t allow for you to legislate that for others. If it did, I could draft a law requiring all citizens to clothe themselves in giant hankerchiefs to await the coming of the great green arkleseizure.
As noted above, you are comparing apples and oranges. If the ONLY reason I was pro-life was because of the Bible, then you would have a point. But there are people who are pro-life based on medical/scientific issues. As my blood transfusion example illustrated, there are times when religious beliefs and actual, physical harm to another person intersect. If my religion said it was ok to have sex with a 3 year old girl, you would have every right to stop me and remove the child from my custody. If the science of the day said that a certain race (black people) were less than human, and BOTH my religious beliefs and the reason and science of other logical people disagreed and said that they were equally human, I sure better act on my beliefs and protect the life and welfare of a black person.
When it comes to abortion and the point where life begins, there are a lot of difficult questions that science has not yet answered fully. I think science leans towards my side, you may think it leans towards yours. Until there is a truly definitive conclusion, I will continue to err on the side of preserving what I believe to be an actual life.
Jim in Iowa
Jim,
I can understand how you could see Kerry’s stance as inconsistant. Personally, I’ve always felt that abortion is one of those issues where both sides are right and both sides are wrong, so in a way I sympathize with Kerry’s position. I strongly believe that if we as a society did a better job at teaching young women to respect their bodies, that would do a lot more to reducing the number of abortions performed in this country than criminalizing it ever would.
As a preemptive strike, let me just say that I believe that this is the job of families, teachers, and clergy, not MTV or ABC. Parents will never be able to control all of the external messages that their kids are going to be exposed to, but they can influence how their child reacts to those messages.
However, abortion is only one issue out of many that are facing this nation. Some people may consider it to be the only issue of importance, but I suspect that when Kerry spoke about “good works”, he probably referred to things like helping the poor and the sick.
Jim, I might have missed the language on the PBB ban. But from what I did read, it was struck down because the law was absolute: no abortions at all past a certain point. It didn’t just ban PBBs, but all abortions after X days. And it did so while allowing no other considerations. To borrow your blood transfusion example (which, by the way, I think highlights the dilemma in a less-inflamatory way than abortion does), it would be the equivilent of congress passing a law banning blood transfusions for children under the age of 2. It’s rather arbitrary.
Take other forms of killing. Murder is not only a biblical sin, but also one of the worst crimes an individual can commit. If we view murder as an intentional killing (as opposed to manslaughter), then killing is self defense is still murder. If our laws and legal system did not allow for a legal defense to murder committed in self defense, our prisons would be even more crowded than they are today, and some of those people sitting in cells/on death row would be considered victims by our standards.
in this case, the actual life is the mothers. the blastocyst? potential life. less than 50 cells, no brain yet, no heart yet, neither sentient or sapient. yes, given time, can become a baby.
secondly, Partial birth abortion? for one, its a misnomer. from
Religous Tolerance
“These are generally called:
“D&X” procedures, an abbreviation of “dilate and extract,” or “Intact D&E,” or “Intrauterine Cranial Decompression” procedures.
They are not abortions as defined within medical science. The term “abortion” means the termination of pregnancy before the fetus is viable. However, it does fall within the definition of “abortion” which is used by most of the public.
The term “Partial Birth Abortion” was recently created by pro-life groups when the procedure became actively discussed at a political and religious level.”
the reason most D&X procedures are performed:
“3rd Trimester: They are also very rarely performed in late pregnancy. The most common justifications at that time are: The fetus is dead.
– The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman’s life in severe danger.
– The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman’s health and/or disable her.
– The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. Many which fall into this category have developed a very severe form of hydrocephalus.”
with those conditions, The physician is faced with two main alternatives at this late point in pregnancy: a hysterotomy, which is similar to a Cesarean section, or a D&X procedure.
there are some physicians who violate their state medical association’s regulations and perform elective D&X procedures – primarily on women who are suicidally depressed, but these are Rogue MD’s, not the norm.
from the site: “Dr. William F. Harrison, a diplomate of the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2 He wrote that “approximately 1 in 2000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb.” About 5000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus each year in the U.S. This is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester. Some cases are not severe. After birth, shunts can be installed to relieve the excess fluid on the newborn’s brain. A pre-natal method of removing the excess fluid is being experimentally evaluated. However, some cases are much more serious. “It is not unusual for the fetal head to be as large as 50 centimeters (nearly 20 inches) in diameter and may contain…close to two gallons of cerebrospinal fluid.” In comparison, the average adult skull is about 7 to 8 inches in diameter. A fetus with severe hydrocephalus is alive, but as a newborn cannot live for long; it cannot achieve consciousness. The physician may elect to perform a D&X by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. Or, he might elect to perform a type of caesarian section. The former kills a fetus before birth; the latter allows the newborn to die after birth, on its own. A caesarian section is a major operation. It does expose the woman to a greatly increased chance of infection. It “poses its own dangers to a woman and any future pregnancies.” 2 Allowing a woman to continue in labor with a severely hydrocephalic fetus is not an option; an attempted vaginal delivery would kill her and the fetus.
There is evidence that the procedure is sometimes performed for other reasons: in the case of a very young pregnant woman, or a pregnancy which resulted from a rape or incest. Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop has stated that no competent physician with state-of-the-art skill in the management of high-risk pregnancies needs to perform a D&X. Of course, many physicians lack this level of skill, and so need to resort to the D&X procedure. And, even in the United States, not all women have access to good quality pre-natal care. The U.S. is the only developed country on Earth that does not have a federal universal health care program. Many pregnant women first seek medical attention when they are about to deliver.”
as to what you said ‘”Take partial birth abortion. There was NO medical evidence that a partial birth abortion was ever necessary to save the life of a mother. The court even acknowledged this fact and still ruled the law unconstitutional.”‘ —
“A committee of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) thoroughly studied D&X procedures in 1996. They reported: “A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure…would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” They also determined that “an intact D&X, however, may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman, and only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman’s particular circumstances can make this decision.” Their statement was approved by the ACOG executive board on 1997-JAN-12.”
I will go back and dig up info on the partial birth abortion ban. I never once heard that it banned all abortions after a certain limit of days, only that it banned a particular method of abortion.
When the bill was before congress, and at the court hearing where the judge decided it was unconstitutional, my understanding is that not a single medical person was willing to go on record as saying it was a necessary procedure to save the life of a mother. From what you wrote, I am guessing they will say it is not “necessary” as in not the only, but that it is preferrable. I will be interested to read more on that.
Thanks for the info. We can now resume regular programming. . .
Jim in Iowa
Gorginfoogle: Luigi, You need to put in the http:// at the start of the link you’re creating, otherwise it assumes the link starts with the URL you’re posting the link on (i.e., here).
Luigi Novi: Okay, here it goes:
This is a test
Eureka! It finally worked! Thank you, Gorginfoogle! (And you took Jeff!)
[begin non-sequitor]
As some of you know, I spent a lot of time online for about … eesh, fifteen years … doing commentary on the various Trek series.
Heh, I used to read those religiously. Have you been watching ENTERPRISE at all? The recent Vulcan trilogy was one of the best arcs I’ve seen on a STAR TREK series in ages.
I agree with you about ENTERPRISE. This season is turning out so far to be the best season of Trek since DEEP SPACE NINE went off the air. The producers have found the best way to handle Scott Bakula, have him talk as little as possible.
If you’re going to split hairs on who was and was not influential in the framing the Constitution, I ask that you allow the courtesy of actually referring to my statements accurately.
OK, let’s quote your original statement directly, and see if I’m misrepresenting your position. You wrote: “Then the teacher can point to the establishment clause and explain why our Founder Fathers didn’t want to establish a theocracy, show them Jefferson’s letters and explain how, based on the doctrine of “original intent” that Scalia loves so much (as long as it conforms to his conservative agenda) resulted in over 200 years of legal precedent protecting our religious institutions from becoming tools of the state.” And I responded that the doctrine of “original intent” should not be applied to Jefferson with regard to the Constitution, because “original intent” applies to the meaning of the Constitution as it was understood by those who wrote and ratified it. I exclude Jefferson from this for several reasons, basically that he neither wrote, nor took a role (pro or con) in the ratification of, the document. His public commentary did not begin until he returned from France in 1789 to become Secretary of State, at which time he threw his support behind the movement for a Bill of Rights. Jefferson was present for the Bill of Rights period, but still had nothing to do with its drafting, which is one reason why I still exclude him. (The other reason why I exclude the example you cited appears below.) Now, how did I misunderestimate your position? (I did make the assumption that the Jefferson letter(s) you cited was the “wall of separation between church and state” one, but I think that was a correct assumption.)
I never said Jefferson was one of the framers of the Constitution, I said he was an influence on them. As for “original intent” I did not say the “original intent” of the framers, but of the founding fathers.
No, actually you didn’t specify. And whether you said it or not, that’s a very fuzzy intent you’re proposing. How do you find the intent of an entire generation? The “founding fathers” were not a homogenous movement once you get past the single issue of secession from the United Kingdom. (And if you want to be really picky, the answer to your next question is that the accepted definition of “founding fathers” does specifically refer to the Constitutional Convention, though frankly I disagree with the two dictionaries I found that use that definition. I think accepted usage of “founding father” refers to the entire founding generation, or at least the revolutionaries therein.)
Are you going to tell me that the author of the Declaration of Independence and our third president was not a “founding father.”
Nope. (See above.) Daniel Shays was a founding father too, and he didn’t have anything to do with the Constitution, apart from scaring people into writing it. What’s your point?
Now, to say he wasn’t a leading figure among the anti-federalist movement is simply ridiculous. Washington went to great pains to convince Jefferson to support the new Constitution or at least not oppose it. And you still conveniently ignore the fact that he was the first anti-federalist elected president.
I don’t ignore that fact, I deny it. Jefferson wasn’t an Anti-Federalist. I’ve said multiple times in this thread that I suspect he would have opposed the Constitution had he been available, based my understanding of his ideology, but he was not among the party opposing the ratification of the Constitution, which is the definition of an Anti-Federalist. Indeed, Madison claimed during the ratification period that Jefferson actually supported the Constitution, which if he was fully accurate in that statement means Jefferson was a Federalist (with regard to the Constitution if not a member of the party that later adopted that name). Madison certainly had a voluminous correspondence with Jefferson trying to win his support, but as far as I know we only have Madison’s declaration of victory to show that he won Jefferson over. But in any event, you’re wrong. Your assumption that the Democratic-Republicans and the Anti-Federalists were the same group of people is also faulty. Lest you forget, James Madison was the second Democratic-Republican elected President. Do you think he was an Anti-Federalist too?
I find it incredible that you want everyone whose writings were circulated at the time the Constitution was being written except for the man who popularized the phrase “separation of church and state.” Pretty convenient, huh?
No, pretty historical. I’d also like to know where you got the idea that I “want everyone whose writings were circulated at the time” from my position that only the contemporaneous writings of the drafters of the Constitution are authoritative for “original intent” arguments. (Seriously, and you accuse me of misrepresenting your position? Dude.) I believe that writings of other people are useful in original intent arguments only for discovering word usage, like what “specious” meant in the Eighteenth Century. (Trivia: “Specious” meant “attractive” in the 1700s, and only came to refer to things like your argument much later.) Looking to Anti-Federalist writings to find the “original intent” behind the Constitution is like asking Pontius Pilate or the merchants in the temple what Jesus meant by the parable of the prodigal son: asking the opposition is Not a Reliable source of information. Perhaps my Wilkie comparison earlier was too obscure. Let me try something more recent. Using Anti-Federalist literature to discern what the Federalists had in mind is like asking Chalabi what Saddam Hussein was up to.
You also have a timing problem. The “separation of church and state” and wall metaphor were from an 1802 open letter from a Democratic-Republican President to a Federalist church. Fifteen years of partisan politics separated that letter from the adoption of the Constitution, 11 years from the adoption of the Bill of Rights. Was that letter an honest statement of the understanding of the founding generation spanning two decades, or was it a partisan statement from a President who wanted dissenting ministers to stay the heck out of his upcoming midterm election? If you think it was the former, I seem to remember some crack about selling bridges from earlier in this thread. Jefferson was the founder most genuinely hostile to civic religion, but let’s recognize propaganda for what it is instead of assuming that he spoke for his entire generation in that letter. And if you don’t think the politics of the 1790s (particularly the Adams administration) affected the founders’ political beliefs or public statements, compare Madison’s Virginia Resolution of 1798 to anything he wrote in the 1780s. For that matter, Madison changed his mind about the need to have a Bill of Rights at all, giving him two mutually exclusive original intents. (Can you tell I’m not really a big fan of “original intent” arguments?)
Whatever, David. You want to declare one of the most influential political figures in American history “irrelevant,” be my guest. It’s obvious you’re just deliberately misrepresenting what I’m saying anyway.
Whatever, David. You want to declare one of the most influential political figures in American history “irrelevant,” be my guest.
For this purpose, I will. (Not that I need your permission.) He is irrelevant to the particular issue you were discussing. So are Abraham Lincoln, Martin Luther King, and George W. Bush, each of whom wrote as much of the First Amendment as Thomas Jefferson did.
It’s obvious you’re just deliberately misrepresenting what I’m saying anyway.
Specifically, how am I misrepresenting what you’re saying?
PAD – It certainly makes me wonder at what point the Ten Commandments became the property of Christianity, what with the fact that the Commandments were handed to a Jew to be shared with other Jews.
That’s the Old Testament, we’re fairly cool with that and go along for the ride. Its the whole “Jesus Thing” where the split occurs. The Ten Commandments work for both Christians and Jews. Jesus don’t.
adam schwartz said Also, The rights of the actual must always trump the rights of the potential. Im sorry, but I’ll always fight for the rights of the mother to control her own body over the rights of her potential child.
Didn’t the mother make a conscious choice to have unprotected sex? I feel if the mother makes this choice, then she has to live with the consequences of that choice.
What are we teaching our kids nowadays? That it’s ok to make any mistake you want, a little operation will take care of it.
And so it begins …
“BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) — Less than seven months after same-sex couples began tying the knot in Massachusetts, the state is seeing its first gay divorces.”
novafan says: “Didn’t the mother make a conscious choice to have unprotected sex? I feel if the mother makes this choice, then she has to live with the consequences of that choice.”
what about the people who had protected sex, and the protection failed? theres always that risk.
what about the woman, again, who wanted to get pregnant but also waiting for a transplant?
what of the victims of rape?
and yes, gay people are getting divorced. See, gay couples are, amazingly, just like other couples. many of them work out, some of them dont.
the fact that in massachusetts they are now able to legally cleave the relationships they legally entered into is a good thing. Since these marriages are, for the most part, civil and not religious marriages, that means theyre not covenant marriages, and that allows them to be considered under the auspices of no-fault divorce.
I fail to see how couples exercising a legal right available to them is a bad thing for society. this simply means that they, like heterosexual couples, can have their marriages dissolved and their possessions that they accumulate together divided by the courts, just like everyone else.
adam schwartz said what about the people who had protected sex, and the protection failed? theres always that risk.
If you’re willing to take the risk by having premarital sex period, then you need to be aware of any consequences. That’s a cop out.
and what about the woman, again, who wanted to get pregnant but also waiting for a transplant?
I have no idea what you are talking about here.
and what of the victims of rape?
You can’t say no abortions allowed. If the woman is raped, or there is a danger to the woman’s life, then an abortion should be considered.
see, interesting thing about that, you just said that some fetuses automatically have more of a right to life than others.
the slippery slope cuts both ways here.
if you’re gonna say that some abortions should be allowed, you can’t say others shouldn’t.
it’s an all or nothing proposition here.
ban all abortions, make it a crime to abort, and then you have to investigate every single miscarriage as a manslaughter charge.
or, you can allow abortions, as it is now, under the varied extant circumstances.
If you aren’t one of the genetic donors, then whether a woman has an abortion or not is none of your fûçkìņg business.
PERIOD
Bladestar said If you aren’t one of the genetic donors, then whether a woman has an abortion or not is none of your fûçkìņg business.
PERIOD
Ok, you’re not in the government, so when the President and a majority of Congress says we’re going in to kick Saddam’s ášš. It’s none of your freaking business. You aren’t a part of the government are you?
Can I get a Touche?
So the Douche wants a touche?
Not in your lifetime.
The government is supposed to do the will of the people, ALL the people, not just the rich and the religious fanatics…