Phill Kline loses
At times like this my tribe will recite this reminder:
God is good all the time; all the time God is good.
Yesterday Phill Kline lost his primary bid to become the Republican nominee for Johnson County District Attorney.
I was around when Phill was making his decision whether or not to run in an election where it was obvious pro-abort, liberal, and media long-knives would be out to get him.
Phill ultimately decided to run because it was the right thing to do, the right example to set. It was to run the entire course of this race in his life, philosophically speaking.
The Bible clearly teaches God controls world events. God either allows or causes the rise and fall of every kingdom and ruler, large and small, for His purposes. Sometimes we don’t understand. But it’s all for good.
In one sense I feel relief for Phill. The pressure upon him has been greater than most could bear. Now it is off. Now God has authorized him to move on. One of my favorite verses is John 17:4. In fact, I’d like it on my tombstone should I finish my long race in good standing:
I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.
Phill has done that.
Also read Kathryn Jean Lopez’s column today.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Apparently “negative comments” WERE allowed at the polls yesterday, 60%, in fact.
PPC,
Negative comments are allowed here too. What is your point?
We’re worse off, not better. Every time abortion wins, humanity loses.
When God closes a door, He opens another.
Phill, seek Him with all your heart as your faithfulness has been tested and found approved.
Of course, now he can run for Governor, or Senator.
Lots of possibilities for him. No need to be down..
mk, quite a lot of us don’t believe that humanity is worse off for every abortion, or the pro-choice side would not be as strong as it is. I support abortion rights, along with birth control education and dissemination, because I believe that a woman has a right to determine what happens to her body AND because I believe that the world faces a serious overpopulation problem. We need LESS people on this planet, not MORE, so a worldwide surge in the birthrate caused by banning abortion would be a disaster.
Yesterday’s result was a victory for the citizens of Johnson County, who clearly indicated that they want a prosecutor who does his job, taking on crimes committed by and against the already born, instead of neglecting his duties while he tilts at windmills.
“The Bible clearly teaches God controls world events. God either allows or causes the rise and fall of every kingdom and ruler, large and small, for His purposes. Sometimes we don’t understand. But it’s all for good.”
Agreed. Go Obama!
“Yesterday’s result was a victory for the citizens of Johnson County, who clearly indicated that they want a prosecutor who does his job, taking on crimes committed by and against the already born, instead of neglecting his duties while he tilts at windmills.”
I agree with Ray.
You know, with all the complaining that goes around here about “activist” judges, you’d think that people would be less inclined to celebrate “activist” prosecutors.
We need LESS people on this planet, not MORE, so a worldwide surge in the birthrate caused by banning abortion would be a disaster.
If the planet truly needs less people on the planet, why don’t all who feel this way kill themselves to improve matters?
Not so easy when it’s you being killed, is it? Much easier to kill defenseless human beings.
Ray, no ad hominem attacks. You claim Kline was “neglecting his duties while he tilts at windmills.”
Very easy to say. Very easy to copy and paste, actually. But where’s the proof? Think for youself, and come up with facts to bolster your points or your comments will be deleted.
Bethany, 11:05 p.m.
AMEN!!
John 17:4. In fact, I’d like it on my tombstone should I finish my long race in good standing:
I have brought you glory on earth by completing the work you gave me to do.
Great verse, Jill, and very fitting.
Jill,
Actually, that wasn’t an ad hominem attack. An ad hominem attack is when the person replying to the argument rejects it on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the argument.
Since Phil Kline isn’t commenting on this board, it could not be an ad hominem attack.
Additionally, Ray is not questioning Kline’s character but whether or not he did the duties that he was elected to perform. That is a perfectly legitimate argument to make.
The entire weight of the “woman gets to do what she wants to her body” argument rests on the presumption that she is in possession or ownership of her body. Do women have deeds or receipts for their bodies as proof her body is hers to do with as she pleases?
I cannot own a person. I cannot own my person. Therefore I don’t presume my body is mine do with as I please.
I believe that a woman has a right to determine what happens to her body
Another thought, Ray, you didn’t seem to care about a woman’s right to determine what happens to her body in this story:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/07/british_columbi.html#comments
“I find this couple’s rabbit-like breeding to be selfish and irresponsible. The world has too many people already…we need less, not more. This is what birth control is for.”
Ray,
mk, quite a lot of us don’t believe that humanity is worse off for every abortion, or the pro-choice side would not be as strong as it is.
You are stating the obvious.
However, Truth does not need your approval. It doesn’t matter what you believe or how many of you believe it.
It still remains Truth, that any win for abortion is a loss for humanity.
Don’t know why this bothers you, as you stated yourself, that you don’t put much value on humanity.
Oh yes please, Phill, run for governor. That would be the best thing to happen to KS Dems since I’ve lived in this state.
MK
It remains Truth becasuse YOU say so?
Why is your opinion “truth” and Ray’s not?
I agree there is an objective right and wrong in most cases. But, I don’t agree you have greater power to identify it than Ray does.
Censorship at its best….
MK,
“It still remains Truth, that any win for abortion is a loss for humanity.”
Only if one assumes that one knows objective truth.
Ray:
Hollow, hollow, hollow.
If you’re so concerned about overpopulation how would you feel if the government chose to terminate you or your mom and dad, or your borthers and sisters, etc.?
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
A,
Only if one assumes that one knows objective truth.
Objective Truth doesn’t need to be known. It just is.
Recognizing is another thing.
“The Bible clearly teaches God controls world events. God either allows or causes the rise and fall of every kingdom and ruler, large and small, for His purposes. Sometimes we don’t understand. But it’s all for good.”
Agreed. Go Obama!
Posted by: Hal at August 6, 2008 11:02 AM
So Hal, you’re a believer now, petitioning the Almighty for an outcome?
Let me ask you this: How does an atheist support a presidential candidate who claims to be a Christian? Could it be that the candidate’s views and stands are so anti-God and anti-Bible that the Christian label doesn’t matter? And is this not evidence of said candidate’s hypocrisy?
mk, quite a lot of us don’t believe that humanity is worse off for every abortion, or the pro-choice side would not be as strong as it is. I support abortion rights, along with birth control education and dissemination, because I believe that a woman has a right to determine what happens to her body AND because I believe that the world faces a serious overpopulation problem. We need LESS people on this planet, not MORE, so a worldwide surge in the birthrate caused by banning abortion would be a disaster.
Posted by: Ray at August 6, 2008 10:58 AM
Ray, quite a lot of Germans don’t believe that humanity is worse off for every exterminated Jew, or the Nazi party would not have been as strong as it was. They supported Jewish extermination, along with birth control education and extermination for Jews, because they believed that Germans had a right to determine what happens to their country AND because they believe that Germany faced a serious Jewish overpopulation problem. Germans needed LESS Jews in Germany, not MORE, so allowing Jews to live would have been a disaster.
How is Ray’s opinion based on nothing more than the illogical construct of ” I think therefore it is true ” any more valid than that of the Nazi Party?
Killing people is wrong, period.
A. @ 11:24 AM “Only if one assumes that one knows objective truth.”
Would be impossible to argue without objective truth, wouldn’t it?
Hippie, great analogy!!
MK 10:45 Jill’s original post concluded “moderators, please allow no negative comments on this post”.
That direction was subsequently removed, and perhaps it was meant as a private message to the moderators.
Jill’s censorship of comments was the point of my post at 10:34.
Jill at 11:05 threatens to delete a “negative comment” about Kline, so apparently that censorship of “negative comments” still applies.
Since this post could be construed as a “negative comment” maybe it will be removed.
“The Bible clearly teaches God controls world events. God either allows or causes the rise and fall of every kingdom and ruler, large and small, for His purposes. Sometimes we don’t understand. But it’s all for good.”
Agreed. Go Obama!
Posted by: Hal at August 6, 2008 11:02 AM
Uh, Nazi Germany was “all for good” ?
Uh, Hal now agrees that God is in control?
HisMan, I’m not Hal, but am an atheist Obama supporter. Sure, I’d be happier if he was an atheist, or at least if he kept his religion private. but it’s not like there’s an atheist running, so we have to take what we can get.
“Of course, now he can run for Governor, or Senator.
Lots of possibilities for him. No need to be down..”
Heh. He got trounced in his own party for a DA primary and you think he has a shot at higher office? Now THATS optimism. =)
PPC,
Point taken…no I hadn’t seen Jill’s original comment.
Hippie, (11:38)
Hip, Hip, Hooray!
Or should I say…
Hippie, Hippie, Haaaaaaah-Ray!
Sure, I’d be happier if he was an atheist, or at least if he kept his religion private. but it’s not like there’s an atheist running, so we have to take what we can get.
Next time someone wants to rip us for voting for McCain…remember those words…
Sure, we’d be happier if he was 100% prolife, but it’s not like there is a 100% prolifer running, so we have to take what we can get.
“Let me ask you this: How does an atheist support a presidential candidate who claims to be a Christian”
HisMan, as you know, most Americans are Christians. All serious Presidential candidates in our history have been Christian, Jewish or Morman. I don’t have the luxury of being able to vote for an atheist for president, and probably won’t in my lifetime. So, I support the candidate who most closely matches my views, has the best judgment, the best values, and the best policies.
Also, your question assumes that an atheist is somehow prejudiced against believers. I am not troubled by the religous practices of either McCain or Obama. Their views on God are their own business as far as I’m concerned. (Obviously I think they’re wrong, but you probably think Senator Leiberman is wrong in some of his beliefs about Jesus but I bet you could still respect the guy.)
PPC, 11:40a: I originally thought not to allow any negative comments about Phill on this post but simply changed my mind. But we’re watching these comments with fingers on the delete button. Stick to issues and bonafide complaints, if you have them.
A, 11:10a, said: “Ray is not questioning Kline’s character but whether or not he did the duties that he was elected to perform.”
Untrue. Ray made a sweeping statement against Kline’s focus and capabilities as point of fact, without any evidence.
The entire weight of the “woman gets to do what she wants to her body” argument rests on the presumption that she is in possession or ownership of her body. Do women have deeds or receipts for their bodies as proof her body is hers to do with as she pleases?
I cannot own a person. I cannot own my person. Therefore I don’t presume my body is mine do with as I please.
Posted by: Cranky Catholic at August 6, 2008 11:17 AM
Really Cranky? DO own a house? Have money in your pocket – by what right do you tell others that they can’t sleep in your bed or have the money in your pocket?
Raise your right arm Cranky, now! Did you do it? If not, why not?
We need LESS people on this planet, not MORE, so a worldwide surge in the birthrate caused by banning abortion would be a disaster.
Posted by: Ray at August 6, 2008 10:58 AM
Declining population = Declining economy
ask any economist.
Better yet review history. Part of the reason that there has been so much advance for humanity over the past 200 years is due to the rapid growth of the population.
The UN reviewed poverty in poor nations and found that it was due to the mismanagement by the government, not lack of resources.
There are now 6 million fewer children under the age of 12 worldwide than there were ten years ago.
Demographers at the UN and elsewhere are alarmed but at this point they are so invested with population control forces, they aren’t sure how to stem the tide.
Europe is set to lose 75% of its population by 2100 if current low birthrates persist.
Those populations who believe in birth control by contraception and abortion will be replaced by those who don’t believe in it.
Actually Hal, most of our presidents have “claimed” to be Christians, but they were freemasons which is incompatible with Christianity. They were closer to Atheists/Agnostics than Christians.
HisMan, a while ago I asked people on this blog if they would vote for a pro-life candidate who was Muslim, over a pro-choice candidate who was Christian. People generally said yes, they would — the issue trumps the individual religious beliefs. Would you not feel the same? Would you not vote for a candidate whose politics you agreed with, simply because he was a different religion than you are?
The good guys often lose elections, but win their heavenly reward.
I would like to see Phill Kline run for governor now that Sebelius will be out of the picture.
Wouldn’t it be great is she ran with Obama and they both lost the election? I think a loss would be spiritually beneficial for their souls.
mk, with all due respect, I don’t think either your nor I can or should dispute the Christianity of a person who “claims” to be one. Some people think Catholicism is incompatiable with Christinity. If someone believes Jesus is the son of god, born to a virgin, and rose from the dead after three days, he’s a Christian.
I really don’t know anything about the Freemasons (nor do I need to right now).
My point was simply there aren’t too many atheists running for President these days, and most Americans state in polling they would never vote for one anyway.
Those populations who believe in birth control by contraception and abortion will be replaced by those who don’t believe in it.
Posted by: hippie at August 6, 2008 11:51 AM
American Orthodox Jewish birthrate 6.0 children per woman
American Mormon birthrate 3.6 children per woman.
Guess who will be replacing the 19% of American women who never have children.
Looks to me that it isn’t politicians who will be determining the future, rather it is good old American motherhood.
The hand that rocks the cradle is the key to the future.
hippie, someone I work with has a bumper sticker that says, “The best way to predict the future is to create it.” Sort of the same idea.
(Of course it could apply to all sorts of things, not just having kids. Plus kids are their own people, personalities and opinions aren’t predictable, etc etc etc. But still, I thought it applied here.)
Not our will, but Yours be done, O Lord.
Chris,
I don’t know if you were following my and MK’s discussion on this or not, but I do believe in the existence of an objective truth.
However, I do not believe that humans can ever know it because we are all too caught up in our own subjective interpretations of it.
I also have no idea where said objective truth would originate.
hippie:12:02: Looks to me that it isn’t politicians who will be determining the future, rather it is good old American motherhood.
The hand that rocks the cradle is the key to the future.
Alexandra:12:08: hippie, someone I work with has a bumper sticker that says, “The best way to predict the future is to create it.” Sort of the same idea. (Of course it could apply to all sorts of things, not just having kids. Plus kids are their own people, personalities and opinions aren’t predictable, etc etc etc. But still, I thought it applied here.)
Good points!
Jill,
“Untrue. Ray made a sweeping statement against Kline’s focus and capabilities as point of fact, without any evidence.”
That still doesn’t make it an ad hominem attack. The statement was also about focus, not capabilities. There is absolutely nothing questionable about questioning whether or not an elected officer’s focus on a certain area has hindered his abilities to perform the duties which he was elected by the people to perform. If he didn’t want either his views or his focus of attack to be questioned, he shouldn’t have run.
Ray was presenting his opinion, as many others on this board have done. Why single him out–simply because he has an opinion that differs from your own?
You guys are missing the point I’m trying to make which is:
Obama’s views are not Christian at all and the reason a non-believer can support him is evidence of that. I.e., if Obama were pro-life, for restoring prayer in schools, against gay marriage, etc. none of you would be supporting him. He is for all of this hootch and it is anti-Christ to be for abortion and for gay marriage.
Obama is a convenience Christian. He’s in it for what it can get him. His views are so diametrcially opposed to bibilcal Christainity I cannot see how any real Christian can support him.
Yes I could support a pro-life Muslim or Jew but nor a pro-choice so-called Christian. I base my votes on principle not labels.
Hal, I would counter your claim that most Americans are Christians. Jesus says, “It is not those who say Lord, Lord that are my followers, but those that do the will of my Father in Heaven”. In fact, most Amercians are lost in their sins and don’t know it.
One can call themself a Christian all they want, however, if they are doing things consistently that are out of God’s will like supporting abortion, they are not Christians at all. What after all is a Christian but one that DOES Christian things or one that foillows Christ. Christ does not advocate the abortion of innocent children by humena beings. That’s ludicrous since He’s the one doing the concieving in the first place.
A.:
You remind me of Pontius Pilate at the trial of Jesus when he asked Jesus, “What is truth”, when Truth was standing right in front of him.
“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”. Conclusion, your statement is a lie and contradicts God’s word.
CrankyCatholic: 11:17: The entire weight of the “woman gets to do what she wants to her body” argument rests on the presumption that she is in possession or ownership of her body. Do women have deeds or receipts for their bodies as proof her body is hers to do with as she pleases?I cannot own a person. I cannot own my person. Therefore I don’t presume my body is mine do with as I please.
(1 Corinthians 6:19-20):
“What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s”
“Censorship at its best….”
We’d hate to disappoint you, Nat.
A., you seem to have trouble with “ad hominem.”
How about this: Ray made unjustified, unverified, sweepingly generalized attacks against Phill Kline as points of fact, not opinion that I’m not letting him get away with. Ray has to either prove his point or risk deletion.
And if you’ve never heard anyone on this blog likewise demand someone prove his or her point, then you haven’t been around more than a few minutes.
HisMan: 12:53:
A: You remind me of Pontius Pilate at the trial of Jesus when he asked Jesus, “What is truth”, when Truth was standing right in front of him.
“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”. Conclusion, your statement is a lie and contradicts God’s word.
Amen. It’s all right there, yet how much energy is wasted trying to find this “truth” or prove it does not exist?
HisMan, It’s so good to have you back!!
I don’t see Phil Kline as being an activist prosecutor! All he was trying to do was uphold the law. An activist judiciary, does exactly the opposite – they make the laws to suit their ideology in a most undemocratic manner.
mk, quite a lot of us don’t believe that humanity is worse off for every abortion,
Only someone who does not believe that God creates each and every person for a special purpose could possibly make this statement. Guess you really have no purpose Ray. Isn’t that a FUN thought?
Jill, as I replied when you questioned my statements about Kline several days ago, this has been discussed here before:
https://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/06/breaking_news_p_3.html
To quote myself:
In short, Kline has to answer to his constituents for spending a shockingly small amount of time doing his actual job as prosecutor, politically motivated firings of career employees without cause, replacing said employees with inept cronies, incompetent prosecutions by said cronies, not living in the district (until just recently, when campaign supporters gave him a sweetheart deal on a house), and, finally, pursuing this baseless case despite being voted out of statewide office for doing so.
The piece de resistance here is that Steve Howe is not just a political newcomer, but is in fact one of the prosecuting attorneys fired without cause by Kline on his first day in office. Johnson County wants an attorney in that job, plain and simple.
“Guess you really have no purpose Ray. Isn’t that a FUN thought?”
Ahhh Patricia. As usual, we can count on you to take any conversation to a low point – getting personal for no good reason.
Amanda: I was only carrying Ray’s logic to it’s conclusion. Why should it not apply to him and only to unborn babies? For that matter what is your purpose Amanda? If each unborn baby is not unique, then neither are you Amanda, nor Ray nor myself for that matter.
I agree it is a low point Amanda – glad you agree because the logic itself is “low”
:-D
A,
We discussed this at one point. You’re looking at objective truth as though it’s a mysterious abstract unknowable universal. I think that overlooks the “objectiveness” portion of your definition of truth. In order to be “objective” it must be seen.
I also have no idea where said objective truth would originate.
Origin? I think that reduces the idea of truth from a universal to a knowable specific. If it is indeed universal, truth would be outside of time and therefore an infinite universal, with no beginning or end.
So you are willing to believe in something that is subject to your own interpretation, because you simply cannot grasp infinity?
Declining population = Declining economy
ask any economist.
Hippie, this assumes all things being equal. If the planet’s ability to support the population declines or crashes due to overstress by too many people, then we get disaster. Read the news: fresh water is becoming more scarce, fish stocks are collapsing, and modern agriculture, including its vital fertilizer, is entirely dependent on fossil fuels, of which there is a finite amount. With more and more of the population aspiring to so-called “first world” living standards, we are choking ourselves and heating up the planet at a frightening rate. I wouldn’t want to own oceanfront property anywhere right now, because before too long it will be submerged. Sadly, it is the poorest of the poor in low lying countries like Bangladesh that will be among the severest affected.
Personally, I would prefer a reduced economy to no economy. Call me selfish.
Okay Ray – you’re selfish. :-)
KC Star newspaper points out that out of state money was raised (thousands of $) for Kline’s campaign, conveniently ignoring the million$ PP used against him as he ran for attorney general.
no bias of course.
Guess you really have no purpose Ray. Isn’t that a FUN thought?
Thanks for a mean-spirited, somewhat specious, personal attack, Patricia.
In fact, I am very clear about my purpose on this planet, part of which is to help others find and fulfill theirs. What is your purpose, Patricia, and how does attacking others further it?
Ray: a reduced economy? Do you mean less consumerism?
If North American’s would stop eating themselves to death and shopping until they drop, some of those resources could be spread to the Third World. Then we might not have to rape the planet the way we do?
I read somewhere that NA produces enough food for a person on our continent to consume 7000 calories. Our stores are filled with nonessential food items (that I like btw) such as crackers, potato chips, pop, cookies etc. Really makes me wonder.
Chris,
“We discussed this at one point.”
Sorry, I often forget exactly who I discuss what with.
“You’re looking at objective truth as though it’s a mysterious abstract unknowable universal. I think that overlooks the “objectiveness” portion of your definition of truth. In order to be “objective” it must be seen.”
Why does something have to be seen in order to be objective?
“Origin? I think that reduces the idea of truth from a universal to a knowable specific. If it is indeed universal, truth would be outside of time and therefore an infinite universal, with no beginning or end.”
I made my previous statement based upon questions I have been asked in the past. In particular, religious individuals have a tendency to pull out God and go “see! this is where it comes from! now isn’t that better than what you think, since you don’t even know?” (To be fair, a great many individuals–the more credible ones–that I have spoken to do not do this).
Is objectivity the same as universality? I think that it can be, but that it does not have to be.
“So you are willing to believe in something that is subject to your own interpretation, because you simply cannot grasp infinity?”
You’ve completely lost me with this statement.
Jill,
So people have to offer proof for their opinions–fair enough, Ray did. Whether you accept it or not is up to you.
“A., you seem to have trouble with “ad hominem.””
Since you’re the one that brought the point up…why don’t you prove that your accusation against Ray about using an ad hominem attack is justified? The way you use the term is not supported by available data.
Ray by your logic, you are implying that there is no effect from aborting all these babies – mind you, not just hundreds or thousands but 49 million babies!
IT all depends upon your world view doesn’t it? You either believe that each and every one of those people have a purpose in this world and can work to make a contribution (their choice of course) or you believe that they don’t matter – that they are just dead weight, that we’ve been lucky to get rid of so the rest of us can keep on enjoying our rampant consumerism.
So Ray – you obviously believe YOU have a purpose on this earth (glad to hear it BTW) but you won’t grant that this might have been a possibility for the babies who were aborted, mostly and mainly out of convenience.
I believe the world is MUCH LESS and is lacking for all these lost souls.
Ray,
Scientists dispute every one of the doomsday scenarios you claim.
Mismanagement by governments and pollution and wastefullness are great hazards no doubt, but a large population is not.
If food is so scarce how is it that most crops are fed to animals not people?
Toxic chemicals are very dangerous. It is a shame that so much energy is devoted to CO2 which is not much of a threat and diverts attention away from the most dangerous forms of pollution.
What is the frightening rate of temperature increase? Like a half of a degree per century? Didn’t we just endure the coldest winter on record?
You know after these folks birth control themselves out of power the textbooks will refer to this era as one of paranoia among the idle.
My grandfather told my mother she would live in an age of educated fools.
My grandchildren will live in the age after the educated fools birth control themselves away.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that a lottery only taxes the willing.
Likewise, birthcontrol reduces the population of those who believe in it. It does nothing to the population who believe in, uh, something else.
And it IS interesting Ray that you are offended by my suggesting you don’t have a purpose but you seem to think that it isn’t offensive to suggest that those aborted babies weren’t somehow needed on planet earth and therefore didn’t have a purpose either.
Ray, quite a lot of Germans don’t believe that humanity is worse off for every exterminated Jew, or the Nazi party would not have been as strong as it was.
Nice Godwin, hippie. Way to fail.
Reality, from your link:
“It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued[4] that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided”
Hippie’s analogy was sound, accurate, and appropriate in this discussion.
My take on the Phil Kline affair is that the citizens of Johnson County were given their chance to prosecute a major player in abortion and possibly remove it from their midst. They turned that opportunity down. The Republicans likewise have had their chance and through corruption, in-fighting etc they have also blown it.
It will be the same when AMerica goes to the polls in November. You can elect a vehemently proabort/prodeath president and possibly a vice-president too or you can choose another path. Sometimes God gives us EXACTLY what we want – to the max. There are many of us who will be praying for the US come November.
KC Star newspaper points out that out of state money was raised (thousands of $) for Kline’s campaign, conveniently ignoring the million$ PP used against him as he ran for attorney general.
no bias of course.
I think the story isn’t so much about the contributions themselves as the possible backlash against them that contributed to Kline’s loss, hippie. How is this biased?
I take back my comment from yesterday – seems she’s changed her mind again. Don’t want to take any credit where its not due.
How is it biased to choose to point out that the KC Star’s continued coverage in unflattering terms of Kline and his supporters created a backlash against Kline. Meanwhile not reporting PP million $ efforts against Kline created no backlash against those running against Kline.
Maybe KC Star is just congratulating itself for the results of their reporting on Kline and their lack of reporting on the activities of his opponents such as Tiller and PP and their political buddies such as Morrison.
Hisman,
“You remind me of Pontius Pilate at the trial of Jesus when he asked Jesus, “What is truth”, when Truth was standing right in front of him.”
Thanks for the compliment.
Seriously though, I’ll start taking you more seriously when you actually start communicating as opposed to trying to pound bible verses into my head.
Ray, quite a lot of Germans don’t believe that humanity is worse off for every exterminated Jew, or the Nazi party would not have been as strong as it was.
Nice Godwin, hippie. Way to fail.
Posted by: reality at August 6, 2008 2:03 PM
Can’t beat the argument once again.
Just announce the comment is a failure and therefore it is.
Got no counter point?
Just call the person, stupid, a misogynist, etc, and instantly you are right, all without any logical discussion.
That’s reality.
“My take on the Phil Kline affair is that the citizens of Johnson County were given their chance to prosecute a major player in abortion and possibly remove it from their midst. They turned that opportunity down. The Republicans likewise have had their chance and through corruption, in-fighting etc they have also blown it. ”
Blown it? Sounds like they didn’t want to prosecute a major player in abortion and possibly remove it from their midst. Sounds like they don’t want PP prosecuted. That’s not corruption or infighting, but democracy. They voted against the guy who didn’t match their views.
I’m not sure the pro-lifers on this site realize how “out of the mainstream” their views are. (not all, some)
Patricia,
“An activist judiciary, does exactly the opposite – they make the laws to suit their ideology in a most undemocratic manner.”
Clearly, you haven’t done any reading on the reasoning why we originally had a wholly unelected judiciary. Judges aren’t supposed to be democratic; they are supposed to defend democracy.
Off topic alert.
A friend of mine knows this young woman:
Lyric Gillett is not your average high school physics student.
At 16 years old, the Heights resident is conducting advanced, graduate-level research that has the potential to help solve the world
So Ray – you obviously believe YOU have a purpose on this earth (glad to hear it BTW) but you won’t grant that this might have been a possibility for the babies who were aborted, mostly and mainly out of convenience.
Again you have made an assumption about me, Patricia, not rooted in fact.
There is no winning this argument, because it is rooted in religious beliefs, but from my perspective, Earth is a place where our souls come repeatedly to learn or advance themselves. In order to accomplish this, we agree in advance to enter into a set of circumstances, not always pleasant ones (what would there be to learn if everyone was happy-go-lucky 24/7?), both for our own learning and that of the souls around us. Sometimes those circumstances involve a situation in which abortion is likely, in which case, the soul of the aborted “takes one for the team,” so to speak. This, of course, assumes that a soul is even present, which I don’t believe happens until well into the second trimester, long after PP stops performing abortions.
A. @ 1:53 PM
Why does something have to be seen in order to be objective?
Because that’s the very meaning of the word..? It’s related to an “object” which is not an abstract. Given the adjective, it declares something is measurable, that it exists, that more than one being can assess it – it is outside one’s opinion or “subjectivity”.
Step back for context:
A. @ 12:34 PM said:
The ‘it’ being objective truth.
This is what I was referring to where apparently I lost you. Saying “objective truth” is subjective is sort of like saying “wet liquids” are really dry.
What changes is our views and not the “truth”. Discussing it at all indicates you “know” it.
The fact you mentioned “origin” suggests you’re not describing an infinite universal when it comes to objective truth. If God is considered the infinite universal “Truth” then either we’re mis-communicating or there’s something wrong with your understanding.
In particular, religious individuals have a tendency to pull out God and go “see! this is where it comes from!
I suppose we could discuss theology, however I was going to restrict the discussion to objective truth… ;-)
Is objectivity the same as universality?
Actually, I was suggesting that in your original statement you were treating objective truth as a universal abstract – emphasis on the abstract. I agree with you that there is a sense of totality about “objective truth” that hints at a completeness, but we must be careful here.
Blown it? Sounds like they didn’t want to prosecute a major player in abortion and possibly remove it from their midst. Sounds like they don’t want PP prosecuted. That’s not corruption or infighting, but democracy. They voted against the guy who didn’t match their views.
I’m not sure the pro-lifers on this site realize how “out of the mainstream” their views are. (not all, some)
Posted by: Hal at August 6, 2008 2:35 PM
Uh, what about rule of law?
What is wrong with prosecuting crimes?
If they are innocent, let a jury decide.
Also, remember that abolitionists were never “mainstream”
Northerners just appeased the slave holding states for the sake of the economy.
Just because something is “mainstream” doesn’t make it right.
Obesity is now mainstream, but it is not healthy.
Sometimes those circumstances involve a situation in which abortion is likely, in which case, the soul of the aborted “takes one for the team,” so to speak.
When a born child is murdered, is he just “taking one for the team”, Ray?
This, of course, assumes that a soul is even present, which I don’t believe happens until well into the second trimester, long after PP stops performing abortions.
Posted by: Ray at August 6, 2008 2:45 PM
Uh, wasn’t Phill Kline just prosecuting PP for abortions well into the second trimester, ( almost third if I remember correctly).
There is no winning this argument, because it is rooted in religious beliefs, but from my perspective, Earth is a place where our souls come repeatedly to learn or advance themselves. In order to accomplish this, we agree in advance to enter into a set of circumstances, not always pleasant ones (what would there be to learn if everyone was happy-go-lucky 24/7?), both for our own learning and that of the souls around us. Sometimes those circumstances involve a situation in which abortion is likely, in which case, the soul of the aborted “takes one for the team,” so to speak. This, of course, assumes that a soul is even present, which I don’t believe happens until well into the second trimester, long after PP stops performing abortions.
Posted by: Ray at August 6, 2008 2:45 PM
And this statement above,isn’t a “religious” view, albeit a very very strange one involving reincarnation.
First of all I have NO recollection of “agreeing” to anything in advance especially for the good of “THE TEAM”! In fact, I’m quite sure it didn’t happen.
So Ray, if you have to die to make room for others on this planet, because you are eating too much, would you gladly take a “hit for the team”? You know it’s a learning experience sort of thing?
BIZARRE.
Hippie, my comments were directed to the idea that somehow in-fighting or corruption cost Kline the election, rather than a more plausable rationale that the voters simply did not want him to be their prosecutor (perhaps precisely because of his anti-PP agenda)
Chris,
“Because that’s the very meaning of the word..?”
Not really. I’m guessing that “object” and “objective” are derived from the same word (okay there’s a four-letter difference, I don’t see how they couldn’t be) but that does not mean that what must be true for one must be true for the other.
“It’s related to an “object” which is not an abstract.”
Object is not abstract, but objective often is.
“Given the adjective, it declares something is measurable, that it exists, that more than one being can assess it – it is outside one’s opinion or “subjectivity”.”
Again, that depends upon usage. The definitions that I’m familiar with do not include an ability to be seen.
“This is what I was referring to where apparently I lost you. Saying “objective truth” is subjective is sort of like saying “wet liquids” are really dry.”
I never said that the truth was subjective. On the contrary, I think that the truth is very real. But I argue that humans can never know this objective truth, because we are by nature subjective creatures. Thus in any attempt to find said objective truth, we get caught up in our own subjective interpretations.
“What changes is our views and not the “truth”. Discussing it at all indicates you “know” it.”
I agree with the first, but not the second. Discussing indicates that one knows of it.
“The fact you mentioned “origin” suggests you’re not describing an infinite universal when it comes to objective truth. If God is considered the infinite universal “Truth” then either we’re mis-communicating or there’s something wrong with your understanding.”
I think we’re miscommunicating. That’s an answer to a question which I’d assumed that you would ask but apparently that you have no interest in (I’m not slamming you here–it’s irrelevant to the current discussion.)
“I suppose we could discuss theology, however I was going to restrict the discussion to objective truth… ;-)”
Probably a good idea.
“Is objectivity the same as universality?
Actually, I was suggesting that in your original statement you were treating objective truth as a universal abstract – emphasis on the abstract. I agree with you that there is a sense of totality about “objective truth” that hints at a completeness, but we must be careful here.”
Agreed. And yes, I would say that this objective truth is universal.
Patricia, from my perspective, the idea that a prophet running around the Sea of Galilee two thousand years go, who frightened the local Jews, because they feared he would incite a rebellion (and they remembered the Masada), so much that they handed him over to the Romans to be nailed to a cross, and in doing so somehow he absolved all the rest of us of our sins…THAT is bizarre.
Incidentally, you used the word “gladly,” not me. And yes, my views ARE religious. And they go one step further in that I freely admit they while they work as a spiritual model for me, they are probably wrong, as are all religions, as nobody can know the true nature of what happens before or after life as we experience it here. Whether or not they are strange from your perspective doesn’t matter in a country founded on the principle of freedom of religion.
It’s related to an “object” which is not an abstract. Given the adjective, it declares something is measurable, that it exists, that more than one being can assess it – it is outside one’s opinion or “subjectivity”.
While objectivity is, philosophically, a difficult concept to pin down, it is generally accepted to be something that exists independent of human thought or agreement. Which is to say, it exists whether it’s “seen” or not. Seeing it often turns it into something subjective, actually, because we all see things through our own lenses, which means our perception of it is dependent on our own interpretations of it.
The reliability of mathematics are objective — they are true whether a person sees them as being true or not; the beauty of a given piece of music is subjective. Etc.
Sheesh, everybody came out with guns blazing today didn’t they?
I can’t WAIT until the presidential election. I’m sure it’ll get realllll nasty then.
Ray, are you ignoring me?
Alexandra said : Seeing it often turns it into something subjective, actually, because we all see things through our own lenses, which means our perception of it is dependent on our own interpretations of it.
Seeing something turns “it” into something subjective? Really!? I think you meant something else.
Object (seen & interpreted) [conceptual model of object in mind]
When comprehending something, the only thing that changes is the conceptual model. Such comprehension of an object does not change the object. If your conceptual model is accurate – is it consistent and verifiable among others, it is acknowledged to be true.
At a certain point, you’re not going to doubt what you know, otherwise you’d never be able to make any assertions whatsoever. I would suggest that would mean you understand objective truth.
Continual doubt of reality is insanity:
[conceptual model of truth] (seen & interpreted) [conceptual model of truth]
Semantic terms seem to be the first challenge.
I agree Ray that there should be freedom of religion however, not when a premise of that religion is to sacrifice a signifcant portion of the population (the unborn in this instance) on the altar of convenience and just because they are in a weaker disadvantaged position at the time of their deaths.
49 million sacrifices IS a bit much, don’t ya think?
Ray, are you ignoring me?
How am I ignoring you, Bethany? Are you looking for an answer to your question, which seemed off-topic and rhetorical?
When a born child is murdered, is he just “taking one for the team”, Ray?
We were talking about abortion, not the murder of born people. Murder is wrong. Were you hoping I would say otherwise?
Hippie, my comments were directed to the idea that somehow in-fighting or corruption cost Kline the election, rather than a more plausable rationale that the voters simply did not want him to be their prosecutor (perhaps precisely because of his anti-PP agenda)
Posted by: Hal at August 6, 2008 2:58 PM
Hal, my comments were directed to the idea that the public only got the impression that Kline was a zealot from the stories in the KC Star and from PP funded advertising.
In most towns, less than 50% of the population even knows who the DA is let alone his political party or what cases he is prosecuting etc. All of the furor came from the KC Star’s reporting and PP attack adds etc.
Ask yourself honestly if you even know what cases your DA is currently prosecuting? If you do know, it is because the media reports it.
Chris —
Object is not the same as objective, whether you’re talking about object as a noun itself or object as a part of speech (in opposition to subject). Objectivity is a philosophical concept that, rather than saying that you must be able to measure and quantify an entity for it to be objective, actually says more along the lines of the opposite — something that is objectively true is as such whether you have the ability to “see” it or not.
Seeing something turns “it” into something subjective? Really!? I think you meant something else.
You’re correct; I mistakenly took a shortcut there. I should have said that seeing something often makes our perception of it subjective merely because of the fact that we are seeing it through our own filter rather than as it exists on its own.
When we consider an objective concept, sometimes our perception of it is subjective. Sometimes it is easy to view objective truths as they exist — mathematical concepts, again; we can see and understand their truth, and we understand that all of it is true whether we’re aware of it, believe in it, etc or not. Mathematically, my understanding doesn’t stretch very far at all — alternating series test for convergence is just about the last thing I remember actually understanding — but I trust that even the things beyond that point, the things I don’t understand myself, are objectively true, because of the nature of mathematics.
Other things, that cannot be proven or seen, often are perceived in a subjective way — such as moral or artistic areas. You might say that there is a God, and that that is an objective truth, but A would say that your perception is subjective so you aren’t qualified to declare your views objectively true.
We were talking about abortion, not the murder of born people. Murder is wrong. Were you hoping I would say otherwise?
It would be more consistent if you did.
It makes no sense to think that killing an unborn child with a soul is “taking one for the team”, but killing a born child with a soul is not “taking one for the team”.
Also, you say murder is wrong, but in the same breath you also say that it is better for human beings to die, to help the planet.
Therefore, you should be jumping for joy every time a loved one dies of cancer or other disease…everytime a child dies in a car accident, you should say, “Wonderful! Now the planet can rest a little easier with a little less burden on it’s shoulders”.
Of course, Chris, you would then say that God’s existence is objectively true whether A subjectively percieves it that way or not…. Sort of pointless to argue these things then! ;)
Also, you say murder is wrong, but in the same breath you also say that it is better for human beings to die, to help the planet.
Show me where I have said that it is better for human beings to die, to help the planet. What I DID say is that we need less people, not more. The way to achieve this is for fewer to be born. Don’t forget, I am an advocate of birth control education and dissemination.
When we consider an objective concept, sometimes our perception of it is subjective. Sometimes it is easy to view objective truths as they exist — mathematical concepts, again; we can see and understand their truth, and we understand that all of it is true whether we’re aware of it, believe in it, etc or not. Mathematically, my understanding doesn’t stretch very far at all — alternating series test for convergence is just about the last thing I remember actually understanding — but I trust that even the things beyond that point, the things I don’t understand myself, are objectively true, because of the nature of mathematics.
Wouldn’t you agree that 99.9% of the population recognizes that murder is wrong? And theft? and Rape? And adultery? And pedophelia…
If these can be understood and accepted as universal, objective truths…why can’t the same rules that you apply to math, apply here?
Couldn’t you say “but I trust that even the things beyond that point, the things I don’t understand myself, are objectively true, because of the nature of objective morality.
“Personally, we feel that if our eternal salvation were conditioned upon saving either one hundred corrupt men and women of the streets like Magdalen and Zacchaeus, ORconverting one proud university professor who felt his tiny mind had solved all the riddles of the universe, we should choose to go out and convert the hundred.”
Bishop Fulton Sheen
Ray, do ultimately want to see the world devoid of all humans?
I’m not trying to be sardonic, I’m honestly curious is that your view.
MK,
“Wouldn’t you agree that 99.9% of the population recognizes that murder is wrong? And theft? and Rape? And adultery? And pedophelia…
If these can be understood and accepted as universal, objective truths…why can’t the same rules that you apply to math, apply here?
Couldn’t you say “but I trust that even the things beyond that point, the things I don’t understand myself, are objectively true, because of the nature of objective morality.”
But we already agreed that truth was not based upon consensus, so your point is moot here.
Lauren, I just want to see us living within our means, that is to say, I want to see us at a population level that is sustainable in the long term at a reasonable standard of living for all concerned. I don’t know what that number is, but clearly six billion is too high, based on the massive environmental damage we are doing, which will come back to haunt us, and the nonrenewable energy sources we are voraciously devouring.
I want there to be a decent place to live for my kids and grandkids and great-grandkids and yours, too, not an environmental hell hole full of misery. My fear is that if we don’t act, the world WILL be devoid of humans or very nearly so, much sooner than most of us seem to realize.
No A,
This was my point. That if you can accept some objective truth, doesn’t it follow that based on what you know, even without understanding, you can accept other objective truth. Without proof. Just as we accept mathematical concepts that are beyond our comprehension based on the fact that what we have already learned (that murder, rape etc is objectively wrong), these things can be taken on faith, from others who have a better understanding of such things than we do? The way I believe a Mathematics professor, simply because he IS a mathematics professor.
Wouldn’t it make sense that the very church that gave us the truths of murder, rape, etc to objectively morally wrong, might also know the objective truth about objective truths that you and I cannot comprehend. That you would listen to them and take it on faith, that based on past performance, they are worthy of listening to on other matters?
Those objective moral truths (murder, rape, adultery) were first written down as objective truths by Moses/God. If you accept those, wouldn’t it follow that you’d accept other truths that come from God?
Ray,
I want there to be a decent place to live for my kids and grandkids and great-grandkids and yours, too, not an environmental hell hole full of misery.
But aren’t those kids, grandkids and great grandkids just souls that have already been here? Don’t they have the right to try to “fix” things themselves, thereby furthering their souls?
And exactly what is this criteria that will determine what a reasonable standard of living is exactly? Will you determine what is reasonable for me? For others? Who’s to say what’s reasonable? If 5,000 people can live on this earth responsibly, why can’t 6 billion? Isn’t it about personal responsibility, and not quantity?
Ray, most of the problems caused by “overpopulation” are actually caused by mismanagement of resources.
There are governemnts that would keep their people impoverished if they had 300 citizens. We have poured money into places only to have it stolen by corupt leadership.
Regardless, America does not have the dire “overpopulation” crisis faced by the rest of the world. If anything, we are concerened that we will not have enough people to support our aging baby-boomer generation.
Even if this was not the case killing off a large section of our population (as abortion does) can not be the answer.
I’ve actually heard someone argue that the solution to Africa’s current situation would be to simply nuke ’em all. Hmm..sound’s like the same sort of reasoning that Indian couple was trying to use to kill their child so it wouldn’t die…
Show me where I have said that it is better for human beings to die, to help the planet.
You support abortion as a means to do that. Abortion kills human beings, Ray.
What I DID say is that we need less people, not more. The way to achieve this is for fewer to be born. Don’t forget, I am an advocate of birth control education and dissemination.
Yes, I know this, but you consider abortion to be birth control. Abortion kills human beings. You advocate allowing human beings to die, in order to better the planet.
Lauren, an excellent post at 5:22.
Ray, you say that you support choice for women doing what they want with their bodies, but you have very clearly stated that you think that a woman choosing to have 18 children if they so chose was “selfish” and “irresponsible”, and then you added, “that’s what birth control is for”. Huh? Birth control is for women who make a choice to do with their body what they want to, and to have lots of children?? I don’t think so.
Don’t you think it is possible that it make more sense to call yourself anti-choice, since you would most likely condemn anyone who chose to have more than 2 children?
I’m curious if you think that there should be laws in place to ensure that people have fewer children, kind of like the one child policy in China?
Also, what are your thoughts on “the baby code”, by Maragaret Sanger? Do you think that, if enforced, it would help the planet?
“Article 1. The purpose of the American Baby Code should be to provide for a better distribution of babies. to assist couples who wish to prevent overproduction of offspring and thus to reduce the burden of charity and taxation for public relief and to protect society against the propagation and increase of the unfit.
Article 2. Birth control clinics shall be permitted to function as services of government health departments or under the support of charity, or as nonprofit, self-sustaining agencies subject to inspection and control by public authorities.
Article 3. A marriage license shall in itself give husband and wife only the right to a common household and not the right to parenthood.
Article 4. No woman shall have the legal right to bear a child, no man shall have the right to become a father, without a permit for parenthood.
Article 5. Permits for parenthood shall be issued by government authorities to married couples upon application, providing the parents are financially able to support the expected child, have the qualifications needed for proper rearing of the child, have no transmissible diseases, and on the woman’s part no indication that maternity is likely to result in death or permanent injury to health.
Article 6. No permit for parenthood shall be valid for more than one birth.
Article 7. Every county shall be assisted administratively by the state in the effort to maintain a direct ratio between the county birth rate and its index of child welfare. When the county records show an unfavorable variation from this ratio the county shall be taxed by the State…. The revenues thus obtained shall be expended by the State within the given county in giving financial support to birth control….
Article 8. Feeble-minded persons, habitual congenital criminals, those afflicted with inheritable diseases, and others found biologically unfit should be sterilized or in cases of doubt should be isolated as to prevent the perpetuation of their afflictions by breeding. ”
Thanks, Bethany!
Lauren:
Good comments, I agree.
A.:
I see it’s working. You want to listen to the sound of your own voice, go ahead. You’ll still be lost when you can’t speak any more.
Yes, the word of God is more powerful than a two edge sword and God’s word will not return to Him void but will accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.
My word, your words, my opinions, your opinions, don’t matter much compared to the supremacy of God’s Words which reveal Christ.
Pound, pound, pound, pound.
Ray:
Double bubble speak.
How can you dare speak about your future progeny and be a pro-abort?
Reincarnation, evolution, pro-choice, all doctrines of demons designed to steal, kill, and destroy.
Get off your high horse, HisMan. “Pro-abort” is your term, not mine. I am pro-choice, that is, pro-reproductive-choice.
prochoice/pro-reproductive choice is the choice to abort which is the choice to willfully destroy another human being at a early stage of life= proabortion = murder = death.
prochoice as you mean it = the choice to become pregnant or to NOT become pregnant.
In order to exercise this choice you do it before sex, not after.
A culture promoting the kind of “choice” you define Ray, cannot survive.
“How can you dare speak about your future progeny and be a pro-abort?”
why not? Lot’s of “pro-aborts” have children.
It was God’s will that Kline be defeated.
He neglected his duties and betrayed the people in order to pursue his own ego-driven course.
His opponent is much better for the Pro-Life cause; Kline was giving it a bad name,
Oh Marilyn, you’re just asking to be deleted.
Hal,
LOL!
That made me laugh too, Hal. :)
Chris,
I agree with Alexandra’s points about objectivity. She has articulated a position which I share very well.
MK,
“This was my point. That if you can accept some objective truth, doesn’t it follow that based on what you know, even without understanding, you can accept other objective truth. Without proof.”
No. And I would never go so far as to say that we definitively know objective truth (though what you have cited fits within my subjective interpretation of objective truth).
“Just as we accept mathematical concepts that are beyond our comprehension based on the fact that what we have already learned (that murder, rape etc is objectively wrong), these things can be taken on faith, from others who have a better understanding of such things than we do? The way I believe a Mathematics professor, simply because he IS a mathematics professor.”
Some individuals, through study and the acquisition of existing knowledge, can come to gain a greater understanding in certain areas. There is, however, no such authority for objective truth (in my estimation).
“Wouldn’t it make sense that the very church that gave us the truths of murder, rape, etc to objectively morally wrong, might also know the objective truth about objective truths that you and I cannot comprehend. That you would listen to them and take it on faith, that based on past performance, they are worthy of listening to on other matters?”
They didn’t give us those “truths.” Plenty of earlier societies (and even later societies that weren’t Christian) had those prohibitions as well. The Bible also teaches that slavery is morally acceptable. Should I believe that objective truth as well?
“Those objective moral truths (murder, rape, adultery) were first written down as objective truths by Moses/God. If you accept those, wouldn’t it follow that you’d accept other truths that come from God?”
The first is false and the second is a matter of interpretation. As I understand it, abortion is also not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. But there are all of those saints who granted “divine” interventions to pregnant nuns. St. Brigit was one, I believe.
I’ll just throw this out there….. Is objective truth higher (more meaningful) than subjective truth?
A,
Where were these laws written before Moses? Actually written as the objective truths that all the world should follow?
As I understand it, abortion is also not mentioned anywhere in the Bible. But there are all of those saints who granted “divine” interventions to pregnant nuns. St. Brigit was one, I believe.
I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you are talking about…could you explain?
Hisman,
“I see it’s working. You want to listen to the sound of your own voice, go ahead. You’ll still be lost when you can’t speak any more.”
Right. I’m the one who can’t stop repeating the same tired old argument over and over and over again.
“Yes, the word of God is more powerful than a two edge sword and God’s word will not return to Him void but will accomplish the purpose for which it was sent.”
You’re just proving the point listed above.
“My word, your words, my opinions, your opinions, don’t matter much compared to the supremacy of God’s Words which reveal Christ.”
You know, if you really believed that instead of preferring to feel morally righteous and condemn all those who disagree with you, you’d actually listen and reason with people instead of talking at them.
“Pound, pound, pound, pound.”
See? This is more talking at people instead of talking with them. You know, you might want to try it some time. It’s far more rewarding than you make it out to be–and who knows, once you start talking with people instead of at them, you might actually change a few minds.
MK,
“I’m sorry, but I don’t know what you are talking about…could you explain?”
This is based off a class I took on the early history of Ireland.
St. Brigit (I’m fairly certain I’ve got the name right) is one of the two patron saints of Ireland.
Like all saints, there are stories about the works/miracles that she did during life and then again after death.
One of those (during life) was “purifying” a nun who’d broken her vows and become pregnant. Basically, it was a “godly abortion.”
MK,
“Where were these laws written before Moses? Actually written as the objective truths that all the world should follow?”
Two points. First, just because a society does not have a system of writing doesn’t mean that it didn’t have these prohibitions in place. So you’re judging based on an unfair standard.
Secondly, I have absolutely no idea. If nothing else, you might want to look towards the Jewish holy books. They were certainly before Moses and contain a heck of a lot more commandments.
Janet,
I have to go after explaining this–stuff to do.
“I’ll just throw this out there….. Is objective truth higher (more meaningful) than subjective truth?”
This is my personal rank-order of truth.
objective truth
societal truth (unconstructed)
societal truth (constructed)
legal truth
personal truth
They are written in descending order, so that a legal truth would trump a personal truth and so on.
That said, my views on this are evolving and there may be more forms of truth than those listed.
mk, I didn’t mean to interrupt your conversation with A. Sorry!
Sam Brownback is a sell-out.
Sam Brownback is a nut.
Whether you’re pro-life or pro-choice, whether you’re conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, old or young, etc., be glad that Kline is gone.
A. 8:55 This is my personal rank-order of truth.
objective truth
societal truth (unconstructed)
societal truth (constructed)
legal truth
personal truth
They are written in descending order, so that a legal truth would trump a personal truth and so on.
That said, my views on this are evolving and there may be more forms of truth than those listed.
Since, I’m completely unfamiliar with your hierarchy of truth before, and it’s still evolving, I’ll leave this discussion to the philosophers of the group! :)
Oops! Take the word “before” out of my comment at 10:40.
Ray,
Do you think it was a bad thing that PBA was banned in the US?
“Also read Kathryn Jean Lopez’s column today.”
“Phill Kline has taken some of the glimmer off the protected rose that is Planned Parenthood in America. Even if you
Chris Arsenault @ 3:54 PM
Fixed my illustrations – tried many different ways to draw an arrow, but the comment filters kept removing them!
Alexandra @ 4:11 – I agree with you here, because what you’re positing is that mathematical concepts can be “shown” to be objectively true. We know that 2+2 = 3 is false no matter how much I believed it true, because there is no way to demonstrate, given those values and the valid use of the addition operator, that it is true. No majority could ever change that truth.
So you, as most, have a conceptual model of mathematics, and rightly call that objective. However, you then state morals are subjective (because they “cannot be proven or seen”), however if you were challenged, you’d have to agree that behaviors have positive and negative values that when combined (operators) can yield very objective moral results. The absence of such objective evidence would render our criminal justice system meaningless.
So are morals relative? Our justice system definitively says they are not. To argue otherwise is to reject all positive (not natural) laws that are based on our moral intuitions.
One can go the Way of Doug? and declare that whole societies (majorities) define morals, but if societies aren’t allowed to repeal the laws of mathematics because of objective consequences, then why should moral laws be thought subjective, because they too have very objective consequences? That gets into that insanity loop I illustrated above.
Living with the consequences of morally relativity is harsh and cruel. Moral relativism is non-sensical and self-refuting. I won’t argue with Doug because he is still arguing with himself (He makes a self-refuting argument). That doesn’t mean I don’t value Doug as a person. It means I feel his argument is a dead end.
In an earlier conversation you asked if someone who believed abortion was a valid solution to social problems was incapable of unconditional love. I recall making that assertion indirectly, and to be honest I think that’s a very good question – but a more satisfying answer needs to be given. I’ve been thinking and writing it as a post for ThruFire.
A,
just because a society does not have a system of writing doesn’t mean that it didn’t have these prohibitions in place.
Of course not, and just because the first mathematician hadn’t written down the first equation doesn’t mean that people weren’t using the principles long before.
I’m sure cavemen knew that they needed “one more apple” to feed their family of 8.
My point is that objective truth is there. At a point in History it was discovered and written down. Since that time, virtually ALL mankind has accepted these laws as truth. Just as all men accept 2+2=4 as truth. It was truth before it was written down, it is truth after it was written down, but by writing it down, it could be built upon. If no one had ever written down the FIRST equation, we wouldn’t have higher math now.
You say you don’t accept that there are authorities on morality and I’m saying that the first group to “write it down”, make it official, and give us the first “blocks” to build upon, were the Jews who later became the Christians. They have been studying moral truth since then. Studying it as though it were math. For the sake of knowing moral truth.
Throughout history people have stumbled upon these truths, sometimes getting it right, sometimes getting it wrong, but the Church has made a “science” out of it. Devoted her life to “knowing” these truths.
I have not. You have not.
Wouldn’t it make sense to look into those that have studied it intensely and “understand” it, and trust on faith that they know more than you do, just as you trust Mathematicians to know more than you do about math? Sure we all know addition and subtraction, and we all know the 10 commandments…but past a point, we need to trust those that go beyond those points. Aquinas, Augustine, Justin Martyr…
You say you don’t accept them as authorities, and I ask why? It’s all they did with their lives, is try to discover these moral objective truths. Wouldn’t it make sense to at least look at what they have to say, rather than reinvent the wheel?
A,
As for St. Brigid, you have to understand that she was both a Priestess/Goddess and a saint. It’s possible she wasn’t even real. Not much is known about her. She came from a time when much of paganism was still mixed with Christianity. Ireland was as UNchristian a place as their ever was until St Patrick came. Changing an entire civilization from one faith system to another doesn’t happen overnight, and much was a hodgepodge of beliefs. Even today, there is a ton of superstition in Ireland among the Christians.
Often Christians would take what a native people believed and try to use it to illustrate Christianity. It didn’t always have great results.
At any rate, using St. Brigid to prove that the church was okay with abortion, isn’t gonna cut it.
Connection with pagan Brigid
*
That she shares both her name and her feast day with those of the earlier pagan goddess Brigid may indicate that Saint Brigid is partially or entirely a fictional creation based on the pagan figure in order to convert Celts to Christianity; the euhemerization of pagan figures and tradition was a common practice of Christian missionaries. However she may merely have been named after her. Given the struggle Christian missionaries faced in their efforts to preach the Gospel in Ireland, even though they Christianized some elements, the adoption of a pagan goddess into the Communion of Saints may have been an effort to Christianize one of the most enduring pagan goddesses. Most historians say that she was a real person whose life was embellished by imaginative hagiographers, and this seems the most likely scenario. Evidence for a political function of the stories comes from detailed political analysis which demonstrates that they have been created or at least manipulated to document the power of Kildare over surrounding regions..[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Brigid
Chris —
So you, as most, have a conceptual model of mathematics, and rightly call that objective. However, you then state morals are subjective (because they “cannot be proven or seen”),
I said that moral areas are often perceived subjectively, which is slightly different than saying that they ARE subjective. If there is objective morality, how will we ever know whose subjective interpretation of it is correct? I don’t understand how an airplane works, I just have a vague idea of the speed of it and the air under the wings and whatnot, but there are people who can demonstrate evidence that they concretely understand things like that — if someone was like, “Okay, none of us on earth really know why the airplane stays in the sky, but we should believe in its ability to do so,” I sure as heck wouldn’t get on it.
Our legal system deals with the direct repercussions on others, for the most part. Pornography may be objectively morally wrong — not saying what I think of it either way, but just for the sake of argument — but since it does not directly hurt anyone, with the possible exception of the person viewing it, it’s not illegal. Rape and murder directly hurt people other than those choosing to rape and murder, so they’re illegal.
In an earlier conversation you asked if someone who believed abortion was a valid solution to social problems was incapable of unconditional love.
I was actually speaking more of supporting the legality of birth control or divorce, and a capability for unconditional love, being mutually exclusive conditions. You said that, because I don’t think divorce should be illegal, my husband would rightly be able to say I don’t love him unconditionally. I disagree. It applies to most issues of allowing people to make decisions I would not personally make, though, including abortion.
Sorry to post on topic, but I don’t understand the epitaph of Kilne’s career being “…completing the work…”
His multi-year obsession with prosecuting abortion providers did not result in a single conviction of any crime. Now his successor, like Nifongs’s, will have to clean up his mess.
A more fitting epitaph would be “he engaged in a long-term obsession and publicity stunt, and accomplished nothing”.
Since this could be construed as a “negative comment” about Kline, which Jill has prohibited, it will probably be deleted. Read fast.
MK
“My point is that objective truth is there.”
I dispute that. Simply because the same ideas have arisen over and over does not make them objectively true. Many of those prohibitions you have cited fall under what I would call unconstructed societal truth, meaning that societies cannot long endure without them.
“At a point in History it was discovered and written down. Since that time, virtually ALL mankind has accepted these laws as truth.”
Not as much as you’d like to think. That 99% stat was far too high, especially if one considers the history of humanity as well. Even today, there are societies that don’t think that rape is wrong (here I’m thinking of some news article I read, I think on Afghanistan, in which it was typical for men to choose a bride by abducting a women and raping her. This particular article was about the outcry over one woman who had grabbed her soldier abductor’s gun and killed him with it) and that many instances of what you would call murder are wrong (one example: honor killings).
“You say you don’t accept that there are authorities on morality and I’m saying that the first group to “write it down”, make it official, and give us the first “blocks” to build upon, were the Jews who later became the Christians.”
I don’t have the time to look this up now, but I highly doubt it. There were highly advanced societies in Mesopotamia and a few others areas before either the Jews or the Christians came along–I’m sure that they wrote something similar down.
“They have been studying moral truth since then. Studying it as though it were math. For the sake of knowing moral truth.”
They have been studying their subjective interpretation of objective moral truth–that doesn’t mean that they’re right.
“Throughout history people have stumbled upon these truths, sometimes getting it right, sometimes getting it wrong, but the Church has made a “science” out of it. Devoted her life to “knowing” these truths.”
You argue as though it is definitively known that the Church has gotten it right. I see no proof for that assertion.
“Wouldn’t it make sense to look into those that have studied it intensely and “understand” it, and trust on faith that they know more than you do, just as you trust Mathematicians to know more than you do about math? Sure we all know addition and subtraction, and we all know the 10 commandments…but past a point, we need to trust those that go beyond those points. Aquinas, Augustine, Justin Martyr…”
No, because there is no way to know that their subjective interpretations of objective truth are actually a correct portrayal of that objective truth.
“You say you don’t accept them as authorities, and I ask why?”
Answered above. You’re also conveniently leaving God out of the equation.
“It’s all they did with their lives, is try to discover these moral objective truths. Wouldn’t it make sense to at least look at what they have to say, rather than reinvent the wheel?”
I do look, and then I either accept or disbelieve.
In addition, if Thomas Aquinas’s Five Proofs are a representative example of how he thought, I wouldn’t say that he was much of a Philosopher. They’re absurdly easy to refute.
MK, you wrote: “It’s possible she [St. Brigid] wasn’t even real. ”
So what? The same is true of Jesus.
SoMG,
“So what? The same is true of Jesus.”
Well, if one takes that skeptical of an attitude towards history, than anyone from history may not be real. However, the amount and reliability of documents referring to Jesus and his life is overwhelming compared to any person in ancient antiquity. The evidence for Jesus can’t even be compared with the evidence for St. Brigid, and I mean that in a metaphorical way, not a “I can even compare apples and oranges by saying one is harder than the other” way :)
A,
“In addition, if Thomas Aquinas’s Five Proofs are a representative example of how he thought, I wouldn’t say that he was much of a Philosopher. They’re absurdly easy to refute. ”
My guess is that where you’ve read his 5 ways are taken directly from his Summa Theologiae. In the Summa, he spends very little time on the proofs and they are somewhat mentioned in passing. I could be mistaken about this, but I believe he goes into very great, painstaking detail (at least for 1 or 2 of them) in Summa Contra Gentiles.
I think the breadth and depth of Aquinas’ work is extraordinary. He may be the most brilliant man to ever live, IMO.
Bobby B, Richard P. Feynman is the most brilliant man to ever live.
No arguments there, SoMG. I can certainly see that, too.
Bobby,
Well, if one takes that skeptical of an attitude towards history, than anyone from history may not be real. However, the amount and reliability of documents referring to Jesus and his life is overwhelming compared to any person in ancient antiquity. The evidence for Jesus can’t even be compared with the evidence for St. Brigid, and I mean that in a metaphorical way, not a “I can even compare apples and oranges by saying one is harder than the other” way :)
Thank you. I mean how do we know that Shakespeare lived? How do we know anything at all about his life? Plays that he wrote? Who says so? People that wrote about him? So what? You can’t prove that he lived, you can’t prove that the accounts of his life are true. Yet we accept it without blinking an eye.
But Jesus? Oh no, no proof! Phooey.
Among the living I would nominate my high-school classmate (and math-camp classmate) Professor Lisa Randall.
For most brilliant in the world, I mean.
Another strong nominee: Yuan T. Lee. Google him.
SoMG,
Among the living I would nominate my high-school classmate (and math-camp classmate) Professor Lisa Randall.
I know you’re obsessed with death, but I hope you don’t have any dead people you want to nominate! lol
I have to delete your post with the unsavory language. Sorry.
And another: Eric S. Lander (another Stuyvesantian).
MK, Feynman is dead.
Oops, that Anonymous is me.
Wow, you went to school with Lisa Randall? I didn’t know who she was, but she does seem to be quite the smart cookie.
Again, sorry to post on topic, but speaking of cleaning up after Kline, the State of Kansas just agreed to pay $475,000 to the health care providers who successfully sued the state over Kline’s “kiss and tell case” brought in 2003.
The winning attorney said “when Phill Kline does something like this to grandstand, the taxpayers have to fund it…”.
The current AG pointed out that the $475,000 was only to pay the other side’s lawyers, and does not incude the amount spent by the State of Kansas on that suit.
The papers are also reporting that it is very likely Kline’s successor will drop the meritless case against PP.
Goodbye Phill, the Kansas taxpayers have ordered the carnival to leave town.
Good luck finding someone to fund your next publicity stunt.
Yes, BB, Lisa is a family friend although my sis is more in touch with her than I am. Read (or at least buy) her book WARPED PASSAGES.
PPC, thanks for the info. We abortion providers need more politicians like Phill Klown. I wish all RTLs were as effective as he is.
” Read (or at least buy) her book WARPED PASSAGES.”
It’s added to the wishlist, my friend.
Kansans deserve better than Kline.
I wish we could garnish his wages to get back that money.
PPC, thanks for the info. We abortion providers need more politicians like Phill Klown. I wish all RTLs were as effective as he is.
Posted by: SoMG at August 7, 2008 2:55 PM
SoMG,
I’ve been wondering if PPC is an employee of Planned Parenthood? You said, “We abortion providers”.
I’m glad you think we RTL’rs are more effective than Kline. Thanks for the compliment.
I’m glad you think we RTL’rs are more effective than Kline. Thanks for the compliment.
Jill,
I’m a conservative, pro-life christian who didn’t support Phill Kline. You and I probably agree on way more than we disagree. I actually live in Johnson County. Phill was an incredibly flawed candidate. Phill is not courageous as you make him out to be but instead I see him as very selfish. It bothers me because I think he carefully used and took advantage of you and the pro-life movement for his own purposes. My favorite verse is Romans 8:28. I’m so sorry you were duped by him.
When I tried to post that Phill Klown was a fake who was taking RTLs and Kansan taxpayers for a ride Jill censored me.
I expounded in my blog this morning in detail why I couldn’t support Kline. From the perspective of a Johnson County conservative you might find it interesting. http://www.sojoco.blogspot.com
One can go the Way of Doug and declare that whole societies (majorities) define morals, but if societies aren’t allowed to repeal the laws of mathematics because of objective consequences, then why should moral laws be thought subjective, because they too have very objective consequences? That gets into that insanity loop I illustrated above.
Chris, societies do have their morals. In some, female genital mutilation, for example, is “okay” and in others it’s not.
There is no “repealing the laws of mathematics.” Physical quantity isn’t a matter of opinion, as morality is. If there are three rocks, that’s true whether you or I even know of it, let alone care about it. It is not our caring that defines things, there, where with morality it is the caring that does it.
…..
Living with the consequences of morally relativity is harsh and cruel.
No, it’s really not. It’s just our lives; it’s the way things are. Is our existence “harsh and cruel”? Depends on one’s point of view and how one looks at it. Most anybody could be said to have a harsh and cruel existence relative to some other people, and for most people it could be said that they have great comfort and luxury, again relative to some others.
“There is no “repealing the laws of mathematics.””
Well, I’m somewhat tongue-and-cheek when i say this Doug, but you could by changing the axioms. You may have heard of the ZFC axioms. They all seem self-evident, but one could add axioms or tweak or drop axioms and we would get new results and some things that had previously been true might be false.
Also, there is some controversy over what is called the “axiom of choice.” (really ironic name given the blog we’re discussing on, ehh?)I’d say a decent amount of mathematicians don’t accept it because its acceptance leads to such strange results. But if you reject it, there are a lot of desirable things that we can’t prove.
So I”m not quite sure of how that all relates to what you and Chris are discussing, but it is interesting to think about, that even math isn’t totally safe (not ALL of math, just some of it).
Bobby – have to laugh – no, I haven’t even heard of the “ZFC.” Set theory does make sense, though, and when it comes to simpler stuff that I can understand, such as the old syllogism about “all A is C; all B is A; therefore all B is C,” then I think it stands to reason, same as logic itself.
If one changes premises, axioms, etc., then no doubt one could end up differently, but basic mathmatical/logical truths don’t change because of opinion, while morality is opinion.
To choose one sock from each of infinitely many pairs of sockis requires the Axiom of Choice, but for shoes the Axiom is not required.” – Bertrand Russell
Doug @ 11:05 said: Chris, societies do have their morals. In some, female genital mutilation, for example, is “okay” and in others it’s not.
This is a great example of moral relativism which is not sufficient to deem what is right and what is wrong. If you say FGM is always wrong, you are claiming it to be an objective moral truth and your are right. If you are saying it’s not wrong because one, or two, or three, (for sake of argument) societies says it’s okay, then you are wrong. I doubt any women will agree with you either.
Chris said: Living with the consequences of morally relativity is harsh and cruel.
Doug @ 11:05 said: No, it’s really not. It’s just our lives; it’s the way things are. Is our existence “harsh and cruel”? Depends on one’s point of view and how one looks at it. Most anybody could be said to have a harsh and cruel existence relative to some other people, and for most people it could be said that they have great comfort and luxury, again relative to some others.
Chris is NOT saying definitively that living with the consequences of moral relativism is “harsh and cruel” for EVERYONE. At first you disagree with his statement but then support it with the rest of your argument by saying “it’s just our lives”. Well, who would dispute that living is just our lives? You are correct on that one. It is also obvious that some people have a harsh and cruel life and some don’t. I believe what Chris is saying is that those who live by their own conscience (a poorly formed one that only knows moral relativism) tend to have a harder existence because their of their poor choices. Going to jail for murder, tax evasion. Having an affair, divorce, loosing their children. Speeding, causing a fatal accident, drug addiction, are all examples of poor choices caused by a mindset of moral relativism.
“Doug @ 11:05 said: Chris, societies do have their morals. In some, female genital mutilation, for example, is “okay” and in others it’s not.”
Janet: This is a great example of moral relativism which is not sufficient to deem what is right and what is wrong. If you say FGM is always wrong, you are claiming it to be an objective moral truth and your are right. If you are saying it’s not wrong because one, or two, or three, (for sake of argument) societies says it’s okay, then you are wrong. I doubt any women will agree with you either.
I didn’t say it was always wrong. Chris mentioned societies, and I pointed out that it’s not the same in all societies. You are presupposing external right/wrong, which is incorrect; I didn’t do that.
……
Chris really was saying that living was “harsh and cruel.” Because morality is indeed relative.
Doug, I meant “suppose” you say FMG is always wrong….
Apparently you don’t think FGM is always wrong. OK, what can I say?
Janet, I do indeed think it’s wrong. But as far as societal mores, it’s not always so – sad to say, IMO.
Doug,
Thanks for your personal opinion! That’s what I’ve been talking about! :)
I figure you knew my position, there, though, Janet.
Anyway, back to the point – societies do have morals but cannot “repeal the laws of mathematics” nor negate physical reality, logic, etc., – things not dependent on opinion.
Doug, do you know there’s a difference between morals and mores?
Janet, I thought I answered but don’t see it now.
I wondered if somebody would comment about “mores,” but mores are moral views, no? Perhaps “morals” would be a bigger set, but it’s still all thoughts of what is good/bad/right/wrong.