The march of militant atheism continues unabated with the newest attack on God and those ignorant enough to believe in Him, resting on the mistaken belief that it is religion and God that establish the morality of a people. Of course this, like so many positions held by the glitterati rests firmly on ignorance and the absence of critical thinking. It would seem self-evident that the morals of a culture are established by the individuals that make up that culture. For example, (and I am not making this up) it is considered bad form to kill and eat your neighbor in most Western Cultures, but to the Cannibals of New Guinea, this is acceptable and indeed – expected. In some cultures it is an accepted practice for a man to have multiple wives while in most Western Countries it is frowned upon – outside of Utah. The point is that the atheists have started with a false assumption and that is that the morality of a culture is based in religion. It seems more likely that it is the religion that reflects the morality of the culture not vice versa.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be certain universal beliefs that are common to all cultures. For example, murder is not condoned by any human society but is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Adultery is another moral concept that seems to be common, even in those societies where multiple wives are permitted. So while there may be a fundamental moral code common to human society that still does not make morality and religion synonymous. The morals of a society may be related to the religion but the morality of that society is still reflected by those who do not believe in the religion. Thus the question becomes, without religion would a society degenerate into barbarism? This may be an unanswerable question since no known society exists that has no religion, even the Neanderthals seemed to have believed in a higher power. Even the most secular power today, has laws that govern that society that reflect the religious beliefs of the founders.
However, this opens the question “can a religious based society be barbaric” and act in an inhumane way. In effect, can religious people act in an immoral way in the name of God? Obviously this answer is yes, because we have many historical examples from all parts of the world. The Catholic Church persecuted Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed Jews as well as witches and heretics; the Protestants persecuted and killed Catholics. Even the Hindus have a violent record. Since the Western World has separated church and state, these religious persecutions have largely stopped today, except for Islam.
Islam purports to be more moral and virtuous than all other religions and has the objective of converting the world to Islam. Islam does not separate church and state, and the church is the state. Therefore, in the Muslim countries the morality of those countries is rooted directly in the religion. The most visible evidence of this is in the veil worn by women. Even in the more enlightened Islamic countries the women wear head scarves instead of the Burqua. But the question becomes does this enforced “modesty” indicate a higher level of virtue than that shown in Christendom or is it merely a reflection of the lack of freedom? The argument mounted my Muslims is that if freedom permits immodesty then freedom is wrong.
Does a woman who chooses to not wear a headscarf – as in the West – act immodestly? Does a man who chooses to shave his beard less manly or immodest? Do Draconian punishments for petty crimes, like cutting of the hands of thieves, make the Islamic countries more virtuous? Is the person who has the freedom to choose between modesty and immodesty, but chooses modesty more virtuous than the person who is forced by law to be “modest”. Is that person who is acting under duress even modest or is he simply enslaved? These radical Muslims – more accurately Islamofascists – clearly think that their opinions of what is “proper” transcend freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly. Clearly, in their eyes enforced “virtue” is to be desired and any person who chooses to deviate from their view of conduct must be harshly punished according to Shar’ia Law.
The reality is that morality is established by the society and while the morality of the culture can stem from religion, that religion cannot triumph over personal freedom. This means that the while the militant atheists are entitled to their opinions, they do not have the right to dominate or eliminate religions practice. It also means that the enforced modest and virtue associated with Islam is equally wrong because religion cannot overcome individual freedoms.
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label morality. Show all posts
Thursday, August 16, 2012
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Sin In The Garden Of Science and Philosophy
When was the last time you thought about sin? Probably not recently because I think very few people think about sin on a regular basis and certainly not outside of church. I rather think that few people ever consider sin, theirs or others, much less what the ramifications would be in a world without sin. Of course sin does exist, at least for those people who believe in God, but in case you haven’t noticed, there are a lot of people around who don’t believe in God. These atheists have probably always been around but they seem to be growing in number and influence. Dr. Benjamin Wiker addressed how atheists view humanity and the ramifications of Godlessness in his book “Ten Books That Screwed Up The World”. In this book Dr Wiker deconstructs a total of 16 books which view humanity as animals without moral boundaries and the enormous harm these books have done as a result.
The first book he considers is “The Prince” by Machiavelli, who views those who seek power very objectively and without regard to whether or not his recommended actions are immoral. Machiavelli makes no judgments, he is simply offering a pragmatic description of how to achieve and keep power. But when implemented his actions lead to deceit, duplicity, lies, and even murder. In effect Machiavelli describes a world without any moral boundaries – a world where God is not a consideration. But this leads to the question “Does God Exist?” Descartes and his “Discourse on Method” starts by questioning everything and arrives at his famous conclusion “ I think, therefore I am”. Dr Wiker points out the essential flaw here is that Descartes could just as easily have said “I smell therefore I am”. In effect Descartes has ceased to view himself or man as being in the image of God and through rational analysis he concludes he exists – independently of God.
From this starting point Dr Wiker begins to build his case regarding sin, morality, materialism, and immorality through the writings of Hobbes, Rousseau, Darwin, Hitler, et al. These people all share a common thread, which is the denial of sin through the denial of God or that any moral boundary should constrain their actions. Hobbes and Rousseau build a case for materialism and the natural state of man which they see as unbounded by anything other than pleasure and pain, a world in which good and evil does not exist. If man is simply an animal that through chance happens to be more advanced that other animals, then there are no limits on actions other than those that are self-imposed through self preservation but not through any false concept of right or wrong outside of pain or pleasure. All of these proto-atheists were speaking in philosophical terms, but it was Darwin and his books that moved the discussion onto a pseudo-scientific foundation.
Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” was actually not scientific at all but merely a set of observations and some conclusions that described environmental adaptation from which others have concluded the evolution of species. But it was his companion work “The Descent of Man” that described man as an animal descended from apes. This is the work that describes evolution but it also describes man as being composed of what could be “sub-species” with European Caucasians as being the supreme evolutionary result with other races as inferior. This work of Darwin’s is virtually ignored today and when the Darwinians like Richard Dawkins are challenged regarding Darwin’s “science” the response is a facile “he was a product of his time”. This may well be true but it does not excuse his lack of scientific method or demonstrable proof of what he has concluded. Nevertheless it was Darwin’s junk science that was seized upon by Sanger and Hitler to justify their efforts to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives”.
By the 1920”s it had been well established through belief and repetition that man was an animal, descended from lower animal forms, unbounded by morality but in need of improvement. This improvement would eventually be accomplished via evolution, but with the advances of “science” it was now possible to purge the human race of those deemed sub-species, defectives, or undesirables. This idea was first postulated by Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. It was she who thought parents should be selected and individuals deemed as inferior or undesirable should be sterilized so they could not reproduce. Notice that this is not voluntary but directed by the state and there is no mention of moral boundaries, God, or sin. Her objective is to improve the human race much like you would selectively breed animals. Naturally her position and support of eugenics led inexorably to Hitler’s decision to eliminate all undesirables from the human reproductive chain. That this led to mass murder was not considered by him in moral terms – it was simply applying science to the problem of racial improvement—i.e. moving toward the superior Caucasian as described by Darwin and Nietzsche.
Following the failure of the eugenics movement, the atheists moved in a different direction but still relying on junk science. Alfred Kinsey decided that his views of human behavior were sound and employed an astounding level of junk science to demonstrate that every weird and perverse sexual preference he had was totally normal and since man was an animal there was no moral constraint that could be applied and thus no sin.
Today the atheists continue their assault on morality and sin as they deny the very existence of God. In their eyes man is an animal, descended form lower life forms, with no purpose, no future, and not obligated to recognize any moral constraint or boundary. I think the time has long past for mankind to look critically at the murders and damage done by the atheists and their denial of sin and God.
The first book he considers is “The Prince” by Machiavelli, who views those who seek power very objectively and without regard to whether or not his recommended actions are immoral. Machiavelli makes no judgments, he is simply offering a pragmatic description of how to achieve and keep power. But when implemented his actions lead to deceit, duplicity, lies, and even murder. In effect Machiavelli describes a world without any moral boundaries – a world where God is not a consideration. But this leads to the question “Does God Exist?” Descartes and his “Discourse on Method” starts by questioning everything and arrives at his famous conclusion “ I think, therefore I am”. Dr Wiker points out the essential flaw here is that Descartes could just as easily have said “I smell therefore I am”. In effect Descartes has ceased to view himself or man as being in the image of God and through rational analysis he concludes he exists – independently of God.
From this starting point Dr Wiker begins to build his case regarding sin, morality, materialism, and immorality through the writings of Hobbes, Rousseau, Darwin, Hitler, et al. These people all share a common thread, which is the denial of sin through the denial of God or that any moral boundary should constrain their actions. Hobbes and Rousseau build a case for materialism and the natural state of man which they see as unbounded by anything other than pleasure and pain, a world in which good and evil does not exist. If man is simply an animal that through chance happens to be more advanced that other animals, then there are no limits on actions other than those that are self-imposed through self preservation but not through any false concept of right or wrong outside of pain or pleasure. All of these proto-atheists were speaking in philosophical terms, but it was Darwin and his books that moved the discussion onto a pseudo-scientific foundation.
Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” was actually not scientific at all but merely a set of observations and some conclusions that described environmental adaptation from which others have concluded the evolution of species. But it was his companion work “The Descent of Man” that described man as an animal descended from apes. This is the work that describes evolution but it also describes man as being composed of what could be “sub-species” with European Caucasians as being the supreme evolutionary result with other races as inferior. This work of Darwin’s is virtually ignored today and when the Darwinians like Richard Dawkins are challenged regarding Darwin’s “science” the response is a facile “he was a product of his time”. This may well be true but it does not excuse his lack of scientific method or demonstrable proof of what he has concluded. Nevertheless it was Darwin’s junk science that was seized upon by Sanger and Hitler to justify their efforts to improve the human race by eliminating “defectives”.
By the 1920”s it had been well established through belief and repetition that man was an animal, descended from lower animal forms, unbounded by morality but in need of improvement. This improvement would eventually be accomplished via evolution, but with the advances of “science” it was now possible to purge the human race of those deemed sub-species, defectives, or undesirables. This idea was first postulated by Margret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. It was she who thought parents should be selected and individuals deemed as inferior or undesirable should be sterilized so they could not reproduce. Notice that this is not voluntary but directed by the state and there is no mention of moral boundaries, God, or sin. Her objective is to improve the human race much like you would selectively breed animals. Naturally her position and support of eugenics led inexorably to Hitler’s decision to eliminate all undesirables from the human reproductive chain. That this led to mass murder was not considered by him in moral terms – it was simply applying science to the problem of racial improvement—i.e. moving toward the superior Caucasian as described by Darwin and Nietzsche.
Following the failure of the eugenics movement, the atheists moved in a different direction but still relying on junk science. Alfred Kinsey decided that his views of human behavior were sound and employed an astounding level of junk science to demonstrate that every weird and perverse sexual preference he had was totally normal and since man was an animal there was no moral constraint that could be applied and thus no sin.
Today the atheists continue their assault on morality and sin as they deny the very existence of God. In their eyes man is an animal, descended form lower life forms, with no purpose, no future, and not obligated to recognize any moral constraint or boundary. I think the time has long past for mankind to look critically at the murders and damage done by the atheists and their denial of sin and God.
Wednesday, July 04, 2007
Freedom, Virtue, and Morality
The march of militant atheism continues unabated with the newest attack on God and those ignorant enough to believe in Him, resting on the mistaken belief that it is religion and God that establish the morality of a people. Of course this, like so many positions held by the glitterati rests firmly on ignorance and the absence of critical thinking. It would seem self-evident that the morals of a culture are established by the individuals that make up that culture. For example, (and I am not making this up) it is considered bad form to kill and eat your neighbor in most Western Cultures, but to the Cannibals of New Guinea, this is acceptable and indeed – expected. In some cultures it is an accepted practice for a man to have multiple wives while in most Western Countries it is frowned upon – outside of Utah. The point is that the atheists have started with a false assumption and that is that the morality of a culture is based in religion. It seems more likely that it is the religion that reflects the morality of the culture not vice versa.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be certain universal beliefs that are common to all cultures. For example, murder is not condoned by any human society but is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Adultery is another moral concept that seems to be common, even in those societies where multiple wives are permitted. So while there may be a fundamental moral code common to human society that still does not make morality and religion synonymous. The morals of a society may be related to the religion but the morality of that society is still reflected by those who do not believe in the religion. Thus the question becomes, without religion would a society degenerate into barbarism? This may be an unanswerable question since no known society exists that has no religion, even the Neanderthals seemed to have believed in a higher power. Even the most secular power today, has laws that govern that society that reflect the religious beliefs of the founders.
However, this opens the question “can a religious based society be barbaric” and act in an inhumane way. In effect, can religious people act in an immoral way in the name of God? Obviously this answer is yes, because we have many historical examples from all parts of the world. The Catholic Church persecuted Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed Jews as well as witches and heretics; the Protestants persecuted and killed Catholics. Even the Hindus have a violent record. Since the Western World has separated church and state, these religious persecutions have largely stopped today, except for Islam.
Islam purports to be more moral and virtuous than all other religions and has the objective of converting the world to Islam. Islam does not separate church and state, and the church is the state. Therefore, in the Muslim countries the morality of those countries is rooted directly in the religion. The most visible evidence of this is in the veil worn by women. Even in the more enlightened Islamic countries the women wear head scarves instead of the Burqua. But the question becomes does this enforced “modesty” indicate a higher level of virtue than that shown in Christendom or is it merely a reflection of the lack of freedom? The argument mounted my Muslims is that if freedom permits immodesty then freedom is wrong.
Does a woman who chooses to not wear a headscarf – as in the West – act immodestly? Does a man who chooses to shave his beard less manly or immodest? Do Draconian punishments for petty crimes, like cutting of the hands of thieves, make the Islamic countries more virtuous? Is the person who has the freedom to choose between modesty and immodesty, but chooses modesty more virtuous than the person who is forced by law to be “modest”. Is that person who is acting under duress even modest or is he simply enslaved? These radical Muslims – more accurately Islamofascists – clearly think that their opinions of what is “proper” transcend freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly. Clearly, in their eyes enforced “virtue” is to be desired and any person who chooses to deviate from their view of conduct must be harshly punished according to Shar’ia Law.
The reality is that morality is established by the society and while the morality of the culture can stem from religion, that religion cannot triumph over personal freedom. This means that the while the militant atheists are entitled to their opinions, they do not have the right to dominate or eliminate religions practice. It also means that the enforced modest and virtue associated with Islam is equally wrong because religion cannot overcome individual freedoms.
Nevertheless, there does appear to be certain universal beliefs that are common to all cultures. For example, murder is not condoned by any human society but is prevalent in the animal kingdom. Adultery is another moral concept that seems to be common, even in those societies where multiple wives are permitted. So while there may be a fundamental moral code common to human society that still does not make morality and religion synonymous. The morals of a society may be related to the religion but the morality of that society is still reflected by those who do not believe in the religion. Thus the question becomes, without religion would a society degenerate into barbarism? This may be an unanswerable question since no known society exists that has no religion, even the Neanderthals seemed to have believed in a higher power. Even the most secular power today, has laws that govern that society that reflect the religious beliefs of the founders.
However, this opens the question “can a religious based society be barbaric” and act in an inhumane way. In effect, can religious people act in an immoral way in the name of God? Obviously this answer is yes, because we have many historical examples from all parts of the world. The Catholic Church persecuted Protestants, the Spanish Inquisition tortured and killed Jews as well as witches and heretics; the Protestants persecuted and killed Catholics. Even the Hindus have a violent record. Since the Western World has separated church and state, these religious persecutions have largely stopped today, except for Islam.
Islam purports to be more moral and virtuous than all other religions and has the objective of converting the world to Islam. Islam does not separate church and state, and the church is the state. Therefore, in the Muslim countries the morality of those countries is rooted directly in the religion. The most visible evidence of this is in the veil worn by women. Even in the more enlightened Islamic countries the women wear head scarves instead of the Burqua. But the question becomes does this enforced “modesty” indicate a higher level of virtue than that shown in Christendom or is it merely a reflection of the lack of freedom? The argument mounted my Muslims is that if freedom permits immodesty then freedom is wrong.
Does a woman who chooses to not wear a headscarf – as in the West – act immodestly? Does a man who chooses to shave his beard less manly or immodest? Do Draconian punishments for petty crimes, like cutting of the hands of thieves, make the Islamic countries more virtuous? Is the person who has the freedom to choose between modesty and immodesty, but chooses modesty more virtuous than the person who is forced by law to be “modest”. Is that person who is acting under duress even modest or is he simply enslaved? These radical Muslims – more accurately Islamofascists – clearly think that their opinions of what is “proper” transcend freedom of the press, speech, religion, and assembly. Clearly, in their eyes enforced “virtue” is to be desired and any person who chooses to deviate from their view of conduct must be harshly punished according to Shar’ia Law.
The reality is that morality is established by the society and while the morality of the culture can stem from religion, that religion cannot triumph over personal freedom. This means that the while the militant atheists are entitled to their opinions, they do not have the right to dominate or eliminate religions practice. It also means that the enforced modest and virtue associated with Islam is equally wrong because religion cannot overcome individual freedoms.
Friday, April 01, 2005
Gray Becomes The World
How I envy the young, not for their lithe bodies and tight skin but for their clarity. For the young the world is black and white where everything is good or bad, right or wrong, moral or immoral with very little in between. Decisions come swiftly and with certainty but with the onset of maturity tinges of gray begin to creep in. Decisions begin to take longer and when made they lack that air of absoluteness that once was present. Gradually – oh so gradually – gray spreads and the black and white view of the world fades until nothing seems to be absolutely right or wrong, totally moral or completely immoral, and decisions come slowly, if at all, and when they do come, they are filled with uncertainty and ambiguity.
Increasingly I observe via the television this clarity of vision that I seem to have lost. Yet I see people rendering decisions that I think would have confounded Solomon and certainly have confounded me. Perhaps the most visible today is the situation with Teri Schaivo. There are people who are vehemently supporting both sides, apparently comfortable in making decisions for others without actually having any facts on which to base their decision. Personally I don’t know what to think and can only thank God that I do not have to make the decision whether she should live or die. Who is right? The husband maintains he is carrying out her wishes while the parents plead for the right to care for her. The husband refuses to divorce her while living outside of his marriage vows – why? The parents are determined to keep her alive but perhaps only as a living vegetable regardless of what her wishes might have been. How do I know who is right? The courts have stayed within the framework of the law and have refused to get involved in the moral aspect of the case. Perhaps that is wise but then perhaps it is the coward’s way. Of course I have an opinion – like everyone else – but it is an OPINION and not based on anything other than my own individual moral compass.
Then we have the situation with that Man-boy Michael Jackson. Everyone seems to have made up their mind regarding whether or not he is a child molester. How can anyone be absolutely sure of his guilt or innocence? Clearly he is someone in desperate need of psychiatric help because he appears to my untrained eye, to be a case of arrested development. I think he reacts like a ten year old boy, who likes to hang out with his friends and do the things that ten year old boys do, and that includes all of the titillating aspects of sex and sexual exploration. This is certainly does not condone any behavior that would fall into the category of molestation because he is in fact a 40 year old man. But I’m not trained and I wasn’t there and the accusers all seem to have an agenda. So how can anyone be so certain that he is guilty or innocent? There is no doubt that he acted inappropriately for an adult but then being a physical adult doesn’t make him a mental adult. So his actions have to be examined in terms of his mental development, which is far from normal -- and any decision regarding him and his conduct falls into the realm of gray and uncertainty – at least for me.
But there are many more issues where people seem to have a clarity that I lack and among these is abortion. This is a matter that moves people to violence – sort of – kill a commie for Christ – while purporting to protect the unborn from violence. The nub of this argument really lies with some philosophical issues that have plagued mankind for years. To some the moment the sperm enters the egg life begins so any deliberate violence to the egg is tantamount to murder, except for those who believe life begins with the first breath. To the atheist, the soul doesn’t exist so when life begins is open to interpretation—presumably with the first breath otherwise abortion would be murder. For others, life begins with the entry of the soul into the body but the problem seems to be – when does this happen? Some think it happens at the time of conception so abortion is murder – pure and simple, but others think the soul enters the body with the first breath so abortion is purely a clinical matter. Others take the view that the decision to abort is purely the woman’s decision and is independent of these philosophical issues, which sidesteps the issue of what constitutes murder. Personally, I don’t know and I am puzzled by how so many people are convinced they know the answer, when these are questions that have been debated for centuries. From my perspective these people are entitled to their opinion but that is all it is – their opinion. To foist their opinion onto the rest of us is wrong. This does not mean I am pro-abortion or pro-life, it simply means I don’t know. I do think the decision to abort is a very personal one and not one that any woman makes lightly. So to me this is another one of those areas where everything is gray and unlike so many others, I don’t this issue with any clarity.
Then we have the issue of war – not just the current Iraqi affair, but war in general. I see people of various ages – some old enough to know better – marching around with anti-war slogans. Many of these people are simply anti-Bush agitators, but some are sincere in their feelings that war is wrong. This issue was addressed by Aristophanes in his play Lysistrada hundreds of years before Christ. I think everyone would be willing to concede that war is a bad thing but at no time in history of man has there been a period of total peace. Peace – such as it has been – has been maintained by the force of arms and those countries that were weak or undefended were exploited at best and destroyed at worst. There is no doubt that war is bad but is it immoral? Is it morally wrong to use force to defend those who cannot defend themselves from those who would destroy them? In effect these anti-war activists are saying that war is morally wrong and that it is better to allow the weak to be destroyed by the strong because this is the Darwinian way and to intervene in this natural process is immoral. To make it more relevant essentially Hussein had every right to murder and pillage his people because to intervene as President Bush did, is morally wrong because it interfered with the natural process. This same argument could be mounted to defend Hitler, because to go to war to stop murder is wrong.
This argument then escalates to weapons – because weapons kill people and the atomic bomb is the most potent weapon for mass killing and therefore, it should be outlawed. Of course, I don’t think in the history of mankind has their ever been an example of a weapon murdering someone unless the weapon was employed by a human hand. Weapons are bad, guns are bad, but so are people. In fact, every society has outlawed bad behavior and has punished those who violate the rules – these are called criminals. Criminals act immorally but to disarm the populace is to place them at risk to those individuals who are willing to use force to take what they want. So who is the most immoral – the person who disarms the people so they can’t defend themselves or the person who is willing to take advantage of those unable to defend themselves?
So as I stated at the outset – how I envy the young their clarity and certainty because as you age, things get very gray and certainty about anything comes in very small doses.
Increasingly I observe via the television this clarity of vision that I seem to have lost. Yet I see people rendering decisions that I think would have confounded Solomon and certainly have confounded me. Perhaps the most visible today is the situation with Teri Schaivo. There are people who are vehemently supporting both sides, apparently comfortable in making decisions for others without actually having any facts on which to base their decision. Personally I don’t know what to think and can only thank God that I do not have to make the decision whether she should live or die. Who is right? The husband maintains he is carrying out her wishes while the parents plead for the right to care for her. The husband refuses to divorce her while living outside of his marriage vows – why? The parents are determined to keep her alive but perhaps only as a living vegetable regardless of what her wishes might have been. How do I know who is right? The courts have stayed within the framework of the law and have refused to get involved in the moral aspect of the case. Perhaps that is wise but then perhaps it is the coward’s way. Of course I have an opinion – like everyone else – but it is an OPINION and not based on anything other than my own individual moral compass.
Then we have the situation with that Man-boy Michael Jackson. Everyone seems to have made up their mind regarding whether or not he is a child molester. How can anyone be absolutely sure of his guilt or innocence? Clearly he is someone in desperate need of psychiatric help because he appears to my untrained eye, to be a case of arrested development. I think he reacts like a ten year old boy, who likes to hang out with his friends and do the things that ten year old boys do, and that includes all of the titillating aspects of sex and sexual exploration. This is certainly does not condone any behavior that would fall into the category of molestation because he is in fact a 40 year old man. But I’m not trained and I wasn’t there and the accusers all seem to have an agenda. So how can anyone be so certain that he is guilty or innocent? There is no doubt that he acted inappropriately for an adult but then being a physical adult doesn’t make him a mental adult. So his actions have to be examined in terms of his mental development, which is far from normal -- and any decision regarding him and his conduct falls into the realm of gray and uncertainty – at least for me.
But there are many more issues where people seem to have a clarity that I lack and among these is abortion. This is a matter that moves people to violence – sort of – kill a commie for Christ – while purporting to protect the unborn from violence. The nub of this argument really lies with some philosophical issues that have plagued mankind for years. To some the moment the sperm enters the egg life begins so any deliberate violence to the egg is tantamount to murder, except for those who believe life begins with the first breath. To the atheist, the soul doesn’t exist so when life begins is open to interpretation—presumably with the first breath otherwise abortion would be murder. For others, life begins with the entry of the soul into the body but the problem seems to be – when does this happen? Some think it happens at the time of conception so abortion is murder – pure and simple, but others think the soul enters the body with the first breath so abortion is purely a clinical matter. Others take the view that the decision to abort is purely the woman’s decision and is independent of these philosophical issues, which sidesteps the issue of what constitutes murder. Personally, I don’t know and I am puzzled by how so many people are convinced they know the answer, when these are questions that have been debated for centuries. From my perspective these people are entitled to their opinion but that is all it is – their opinion. To foist their opinion onto the rest of us is wrong. This does not mean I am pro-abortion or pro-life, it simply means I don’t know. I do think the decision to abort is a very personal one and not one that any woman makes lightly. So to me this is another one of those areas where everything is gray and unlike so many others, I don’t this issue with any clarity.
Then we have the issue of war – not just the current Iraqi affair, but war in general. I see people of various ages – some old enough to know better – marching around with anti-war slogans. Many of these people are simply anti-Bush agitators, but some are sincere in their feelings that war is wrong. This issue was addressed by Aristophanes in his play Lysistrada hundreds of years before Christ. I think everyone would be willing to concede that war is a bad thing but at no time in history of man has there been a period of total peace. Peace – such as it has been – has been maintained by the force of arms and those countries that were weak or undefended were exploited at best and destroyed at worst. There is no doubt that war is bad but is it immoral? Is it morally wrong to use force to defend those who cannot defend themselves from those who would destroy them? In effect these anti-war activists are saying that war is morally wrong and that it is better to allow the weak to be destroyed by the strong because this is the Darwinian way and to intervene in this natural process is immoral. To make it more relevant essentially Hussein had every right to murder and pillage his people because to intervene as President Bush did, is morally wrong because it interfered with the natural process. This same argument could be mounted to defend Hitler, because to go to war to stop murder is wrong.
This argument then escalates to weapons – because weapons kill people and the atomic bomb is the most potent weapon for mass killing and therefore, it should be outlawed. Of course, I don’t think in the history of mankind has their ever been an example of a weapon murdering someone unless the weapon was employed by a human hand. Weapons are bad, guns are bad, but so are people. In fact, every society has outlawed bad behavior and has punished those who violate the rules – these are called criminals. Criminals act immorally but to disarm the populace is to place them at risk to those individuals who are willing to use force to take what they want. So who is the most immoral – the person who disarms the people so they can’t defend themselves or the person who is willing to take advantage of those unable to defend themselves?
So as I stated at the outset – how I envy the young their clarity and certainty because as you age, things get very gray and certainty about anything comes in very small doses.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)