Yesterday an invitation arrived from Baroness Stern to the inaugural AGM of the All Party Parliamentary Group for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Very timely. Teresa Lewis, a 41yr old woman with borderline subnormal level of intellectual development was the first woman to be executed by the State of Virginia for nearly a century. This tragedy inevitably diminishes the respect I feel for American people who support the death penalty.
With an IQ score said to be ‘72’, Lewis had the intellectual ability of a 12-14yr old. If her IQ score had been two points lower, the U.S. Supreme Court would have deemed her execution unconstitutionally ‘cruel and unusual’. Frankly IQ tests just aren’t that accurate, this is the level of IQ in which it would be almost impossible to devise, sustain and implement the plot. She has admitted her part in a murder plot to kill her husband and stepson, Julian and Charles Lewis respectively, to collect insurance money in 2002. Her co-conspirators, gunmen Rodney Fuller and Matthew Shallenberger, were spared the death penalty and instead sentenced to life imprisonment. It is almost unbelievable that a State in 21st century USA could act in such a barbaric inhumane way towards a woman whose mental state was so disadvantaged intellectually.
Virginia’s governor, Robert M. McDonnell, who has supported legislation to expand the use of the death penalty, branded Lewis ‘the head of this serpent’, denying her request for clemency on Friday. Bush when Governor of Texas was almost an official serial killer so keen was he to despatch the wicked.
The death penalty is commonest in Texas and Virginia. Texas leads the country in executions and has executed many inmates with serious mental illness including Larry Robison, James Colburn, Betty Lou Beets, and Kelsey Patterson. Texas sought the death penalty against Andrea Yates, who was found not guilty by reason of insanity at her second trial. We in Europe need to give our wholehearted support to those many Americans who are ashamed of their country’s judicial inhumanity.
This was an abhorrent act that leaves the USA in no state to criticise other Nations. The graphic reporting of Teresa Lewis` last hours made me feel sick with disgust that a western Nation could act so barbarically.
“Arguments for or against the Death Penalty must be made consistently on its own Merit, not based on the peculiarities of individual cases or how other Nations may respond.”
Arguments should be made on the rule of Law which is the ICHR, international convention of Human rights which is law in many states of the world, including the United States; convention meaning international law.
How is it that some of the United States observe the Law and others don’t? It is Federal Law but not state law that hangings and executions may not continue.
Individual US states apparently still have the power to over rule Federal law in their own deliberations.
Most states worldwide have committed themselves in some way, in part, to the ICHR
and committed themselves in the long term to various other parts of it.
Individual states of the USA are committed to it by federal law, and ignore it, whilst Iran
and many Central Asian states are not committed to it by law, but have said they will sign up to the legal drafts as soon as they can, and by set dates.
Some drag their heels in, then, ignoring the set dates for legislation, Iran included.
“This tragedy inevitably diminishes the respect I feel for American people who support the death penalty.” (Baroness Murphy)
but in particular for those represented by the State of Virginia which has chosen to ignore federal Law?
I don’t agree with the death penalty and am proud of the fact that we don’t have it anywhere in Europe. The US should feel ashamed to align itself with various developing countries and dictatorships in this respect.
However, I can’t say this particular case made me feel much worse than any other execution. This woman plotted to kill members of her family and hired hitmen in order to collect insurance money. That surely requires a certain amount of premeditation and intelligence. And anyone capable of such an act certainly needs to be locked up indefinitely to prevent them from posing a danger to others.
I think anyone who deliberately kills another person in cold blood must have some sort of mental deficiency. Therefore I don’t see why we should let some of them off on the basis of what is – as Baroness Murphy points out – an unreliable form of intelligence test.
I agree with you Jonathon. The death penalty is a consequence of the state systems that B Murphy is so much in favour of.
What’s absolutely dispicable though is the out and out sexist nature of her post. It’s the fact that is a woman that is a large part of what she finds horrific. It’s not the death penalty, or she would have been posting repeated on the men who have been killed in the US, and at least three who were underage when they committed their crime.
No, its the sort of feminist nonsence that’s becoming prevelant. We will only protest if the offence is against a woman. If the offence is against a man, well its just deserts for some past wrong.
Here’s another example. Boys are underperforming in schools. White boys in particular. Where’s the fuss about extra money? Not a peep.
What hypocrasy.
Same with expenses.
SO, you loose respect for Americans who support the Death Penalty based on the Technicalities of one case? I always wondered just how Rational a self styled Rationalist can be, when they refuse to use basic Logic and instead insist on using vain emotional special pleading. Even using this case as a Tragic example of a miscarriage of Justice, its hardly a good argument against the Death Penalty totally.
It also reminds me of the weird claim made by many who oppose the Death Penalty, in that they claim that those who do are Hypocrites because they are Against Abortion. Never mind that a good many who oppose Abortion also oppose the Death Penalty, the two are always linked and its generally seen that it’s a Hypocrisy. Yet, no one considers the reverse. Given your own support for Abortion, as a woman’s right to choose of course, and how your perfectly comfortable forcing Taxpayers to fund this fundamental right of a woman over her own body regardless of their own Moral objections to the procedure because your so convinced in your own mind of the righteousness of your own cause.
The fact that this woman was not very bright really doesn’t matter, as she was clearly mentally competent enough to go along with the plan, as Jonathan has already stated. Using her Mental ability as an attempted emotional ploy to charge all of the Death Penalty supporters with being somehow Inhumane is just another example of how little real Logic enters into this sort of discussion.
I myself am Neutral on the matter of the Death Penalty, and recognise it as a Valid mean for Punishment provided that the Crime suits it. This has been historically the case, and no matter what Philosophy you subscribe to it can be very easy to justify. While there can be a case made against it too, the case has to be on its own Merits, not on the case of a single woman who is simply being used to advance a prearrived at conclusion.
Its this sort of emotional blackmail and high and mighty self assured attitude of confident superiority that really prevents respect for the view you hold, so I’d be careful in castigating others.
Clarity; Charity; Self-Correction should be sufficient to ensure good-communication, sound-reasoning, and win-win-win cooperative problem solving.
For instance in this most deeply serious and distressing Death Penalty matter, we need very clear sub-legislative reporting and charitable and self-correctional deliberative-reasoning.
What do we see in the posts so far ?
1. Baroness Murphy is clearly emotionally and spiritually all-shook-up by the execution of a borderline-mentally-incompetent female-stooge in a profitable-murder plot carried out by two stronger men, by the whole complex of internationally shifting morals and religious tenets about life and death, by contrasting judicial-understandings of life and death, by pots calling kettles black, and by various competitive political prowesses utilising any issue for minor political-and-personal gain.
She is really tub-thumping to the popular public audience, rather brazenly evidenced by her closing punch-line “We in Europe need to give our wholehearted support to those many Americans who are ashamed of their country’s judicial inhumanity”.
Our human cognitive and conative values and dispositions about Life and Death, and about legislation thereto, are not matters for non-Clarity, non-Charity, nor for non-Self-Correction.
Political-play and ploy are malfeasantly misplaced in any lifesupport-undermining, life-threatening, or life-taking situation and legislation thereto.
(to be continued, to include the good-communication and acceptable-reasoning parts of the Peer’s opening Post).
———————————–
2. Carl H’s opening summary-judgement against the USA is a naked unsupported Conclusion: thus must be rebutted and await further analysis.
His ensuing, and closing, “I” message is, however, perfectly acceptable, in its own right.
———————————-
3. Jonathan begins with an “I” message; and is using discussional rather than conclusory argumentative language; and this shows a good level of preparedness to Self-Correct.
False-correlations appear to be missed, however; so all three paragraphs go on a cold-hold whilst they get scrutinised and analysed.
——————-
4. I find Jonathan’s <160 words easier to work from, and to publicly-discuss, than I do Carl’s mere 38, and Baroness Murphy’s unclear, quite uncharitable, and un-self-corrective 341 even if hers does present much more (alleged) evidence than do the rest of us, so far.
======================
294 words JSDM0633Sn26Sep
JDSM
“This was an abhorrent act that leaves the USA in no state to criticise other Nations.”
Punishment for a crime should be that, it should make the person feel remorseful and not commit such an act again. There is no remorse after death, nor can one feel anything unless you believe in fairy tales like Hell. A death sentence is purely vengeance by the State, it is abhorrent and not civilised in anyway. It is something done without clarity of mind, it solves nothing, nor does it relieve the anguish felt by the victims and relatives of such criminals.
The USA is perceived by such an act to be as barbourous as third World Countries and terrorist groups. All forms of Judiciary make mistakes at times, with a death sentence this cannot be rectified unless one actually preaches a life for a life and commits Judge and Jury to similar.
With the USA commiting such vengeance and also acts such as holding prisoners beyond law in Guantanamo it cannot hold it`s head high and preach to other regimes that commit similar acts.
The Death Sentence is not as Zarove puts below any form of deterrent, else the USA would have the lowest statistics for murder etc.
Zarove which do you believe worse: Abortion, starvation and illness ?
Whilst I may consider arguing about dates of when abortion maybe considered, I will not consider that abortion be outlawed. You have no right, God given or other to decide if a women keeps a pregnancy or not. If it were not for abortion in your world you may spend a lot time putting to death women and families who have committed infanticide through necessity.
Carl.H;
Your points. both sound and unsound, need to be disentangled one a a time; but since most are of common-iterest, I’ll offer a new general comment about such.
——–
Suffice this reply ‘between CarlH and JSDM’, to reiterate my initial critical-observation that such statements, as you are making many of, that are in the form of groundless conclusions and fallacious premisses, need to be initially supported by both true premisses and valid or cogent srgumentation.
You ‘pinned’ to my name your own fallacious double-barreled issue and statement about “abhorrent act” and (‘therefore’)”the USA is in no state to criticise other nations”;
you then go on to make a number of further fallacious statements. That lot has to be taken publicly (not necessarily in any ad hominem sense, however).
———————-
Should you have simply placed as an antecedent “I think that …”, your whole communication could be taken as being responsibly and rationally subjective; in its own right as an “I”-message.
Omitting to take such subjective-ownership, your message has to be seen as a number of rationally-objective claims in the form of logical-statements; which thereby must be scrutinised and, if seen by another to be wrong-in-fact, or fallacious-in-reasoning, be publicly named as such.
——————-
You have also gone on to intimate a link between your argument against JSDM (on your “abhorrent act” grounds) and Zarove’s argument that “the Death Sentence is a deterrent”;
which since you are pressing formal-argumentation, also earns an immediate rebuttal.
—————
That I agree with much of your thinking and emotion is secondary to firstly getting Clarity, Charity, and Self-Correction preparedness, in the communicational-sense and the formal and moral reasoning between us.
Regards;
===========
JSDM1251T28Sep10
The difference between “I think” and “I know” is knowledge, making the charge of fallaciousness subjective.
Ones diction maybe exemplary, thereby excluding the status quo from argument, but such studious acts may infact be detrimental to ones knowledge. Suffice to say your offering is of no knowledge but mere conjecture of your own ego.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-deterrence_1202edi.ART.State.Edition1.36bbe2f.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates#stateswithvwithout
Oh, one more hting about Americas Judician Inhumanity. Did you know that America banned the Death Penalty between 1972 and 1976?
It was restored, though. Meanwhile France Abolished the Death penalty in 1981. In the United Kingdom in 1971. So, while the UK margionally beats the USA on this, France does not.
But all of this is based on recent developments, unless you want to go back to Marxist Theory in the 1800’s. Marx had proposed ablishign the Death Penalty as id other Thinkers but even the Soviet Union practiced executions, so its not like it was hard pressed and practiced.
Whose to say European Values ( Or British, but it seems we want British Values ot be European these days) won’t change in the curse of 20-50 years to once again support the Death Penalty? What makes you so sure that modern Liberal notions concerning the Death Penalty are somehow Objectively right?
Not that I expect genuine concern for the topic, but the Death Penalty is usually instituted as both a deterrent ( and some studies do confirm it can serve as one) and as a mean of holding the Criminal accountablema nd sfaeguarding society from further damage should the Prisoner escape, or win Parole due to convining a panel they aere no longer a Threat, but committing yet another offense.
The Inhumanity of the Death Penalty is entirely dependant upon how you defien the trms, and as I said above, your personally for Abortion-on-demand, so I’m not sure why you think thats more Humane than this. At leats the Death Penalty is applied to those found Guilty of a Crime, not those merley inconveniancing someone by the fact that they are alive. Then again I’m sure you’ll pus he idea that ABortion doens’t kill anyone and a Baby is not inside a womans womb, maybe I’llhear about it beign s Potential Huan Being, or get a quote from Peter Singer.
Still, why should I buy into your “Nonreligious” view about the Death Penalty when your claim is base don patently obvious Logical Flaws?
Why should anyone?
If this was the execution of a man with an IQ of 183 and who was not sufferign any mental illness or impairment, and wo simply want4d insurance money so had soemone killed, woudl that be even occassion for duscussion? Or is it just when the case can be emotionally Manipulated?
Good stuff, Zarove. JSDM.
—————
But:
What if “the lower the intellect, the easier their fooling” ?
(Being “mentally competent”, what the hell ever that is legislated to mean, to “go along with someone else’s plan” becomes more than a mere oxymoron;
because other essential homo-sapiens functions notably cognition, conation, feeling, intuition, and the transcendental, had been incompetent at spotting the malevolence of the persuasion put into her mind, heart and blinded-spirit. The argument becomes utterly fallacious, an enthymeme by omitting those other relevant factors, of incompetency to make individual and independent judgement and to implement such judgement by act of will (conation).
The woman had already been engulfed by lack of ability to learn, and by lack of compensatory social-support and special-education, and had become practically lone, friendless, and vulnerable to duping. The marriage vows must have also been beyond (her) real-life constructive comprehension.))
I put these questions forward in the name of VClarity, Charity, and Self-Correction; not necessarily because I argue them or believe in them.
==============
JSDM2359Sn26Sep
Worst of all, this US execution will be used by Iran to justify the proposed stoning, or hanging of Ms Ashtiani.
You have not stated an obvious political and relationship-empathy factor:
that the USA may be ‘mirroring’ the other countries’ inhumane and dehumanising laws and practices; and possibly more strongly be showing those inhumane countries that Guantanamo Bay foreign criminals are n ot the only ones liable to almost “summary” execution.
Well ?
++++++++++++++++
JSDM0858M27
While I disagree with the death sentence in the US, it’s hardly in the same league as penalties in Iran. After all, the Americans only execute people for murder, whereas in Iran they want to stone a woman to death for “adultery”. Adultery does not cause loss of life, so it can’t even be considered an “eye for an eye”.
Jonathon have you ever experienced Adultery , divorce,or the loss your children through it ?
It’s a minor niggle, but the Baroness’ point was that the Iranian government will use this for propaganda, not that Iran’s use of the death penalty is the same as the US’.
Worst of all, this US execution will be used by Iran to justify the proposed stoning, or hanging of Ms Ashtiani.
=====
They’ve been hanging men repeatedly. You’re a complete sexist
EXCEPT, My lady Deech, the Stoning of Ms Ashtiani did not involve the same set of circumstances. This is like saying that Iran can now Justify imprisoning thieves because the UK does.
The Arguments for or against the Death Penalty must be made consistently on its own Merit, not based on the peculiarities of individual cases or how other Nations may respond. Justification for an action is not the same thing as making sure everyone else agrees, and just because someone can point to your action to justify one of their own doesn’t make the actual facts iunvovled compatable.
I think too many have too Visceral a reaction oto the Death Penalty to even approach this topic fairly.
Jonathan, I wasn’t implying that the criminal act was less horrific because the person who apparently commissioned the act was of low IQ nor do I think she and her co-conspirators should be allowed to walk free. But courts here and in most states of the USA do take account of a person’s mental state in determining sentencing. If there is evidence sufficient to create a reasonable doubt as to whether the defendant because of mental illness or “defect” possessed the capacity to premeditate, deliberate or form the specific intent to kill then the defendant should not be convicted of murder. This does not mean that the defendant is entitled to an acquittal if the fact of killing is found. In Britain the defendant still might be convicted of manslaughter. The point about a person with a very low IQ is that it is highly unlikely that the person would be able to conceive, maintain and execute a plan to conclusion without help from other people, would be highly likely to be subject to the mental influences of others and may well not be able to think through the consequences of her actions. In most advanced societies, including in most states in the USA, judges take account of this so called ‘partial defence’ to enable the person to have a more appropriate sentence, in the UK, a lesser prison sentence or sometimes, if the person is considered to be a continuing danger as a result of intellectual and or emotional disability th person will go to a specialist secure psychiatric unit.
ZAROVE, sorry, I seem to have views on almost everything that are orthogonal to yours. And I make no apology for using this case as an exemplar of why the death penalty is flawed. But of course you are right that it would be just as wrong to kill the high IQ man in the case you describe.
You’ve answered your own arguments about why I think the death penalty is wrong but abortion can be right; it all comes down to deciding when an independent human life acquires basic human rights.
Non-orthogonally, I am always glad to hear Baroness Murphy’s views on most things from Guy’s to the Gallows.
Campaigning against injustice is not an easy Task of Law, or official lack of it. I have worked on a good many similar campaigns over the last 20 years or so, and even if the good fight is won, one can never know what effect one’s own campaign has had, merely that the virtue of it, is its own reward.
I agree with the Baroness’ conclusions and I am privileged to know her opinions from this board.
I hope doing so isn’t inappropriate, but I feel ethically obligated to post this, considering that you have raised the subject, simply to do my insignificant but principled bit.
As highlighted by the venerable Richard Stallman, it is going to be the World Day Against the Death Penalty, organised by the even more laudable Amnesty International–an organisation very worthy of donations–, on the 10th of next month. Simply making a twitter post is beneficial.
See here if you’re interested: http://bit.ly/bKlp5P
Note that even though the day is aimed at the USA, some activities can be partaken in by us Brits as well.
My post is a bit long and will be cut up. I doubt you’ll read it anyay as Im a religiosu eprson shoutign at the screen and all, and we all know how irratinal I am, but its in three parts.
That’s my point, Baroness Murphy. You have no morally l4egitimate Right to really be upset about the Death Penalty because you support Abortion. The fact that you, as a “Rationalist” can rationalise that a Baby in a Mothers womb is not really Human but just a “Potential Human Being” is ultimately the same sort of Logic that allows the Racial genocides of the 20th Century in the name of Purging Humanity of undesirable elements, or sterilising and killing mentally handicapped persons. All of those things were rather openly advocated by such illustrious and well respected thinkers as H.G. Wells, and Margaret Sanger, who by the way helped shaped your “Free” thought about Abortion by her tireless efforts to promote it.
The only reason you support Abortion is because of your Religion. Yes I know, your an Agnostic, I did not say Atheist, and thus can’t have a Religion, but if you think for a moment your nonreligious completely rational belief system base don reason is informed by philosophical tenets and values which are subjective.
Oftentimes, you start with an objective, such as supporting abortion, and frame it as “a woman’s right to choose” simply to justify it Logically.
Even though I am a Religious person, and therefore unlike you don’t think for myself and am incapable of rational thinking on any topic, and can’t be educated (Religious education is an Oxymoron) I am reminded of David Hume, whom I’ve never read because my reading is limited only to the Bible and whatever religious material my Church gives me.
He said that Reason is the Slave of Passion.
The reason he said this was that we all too often use Reason to simply justify positions we have already arrived at or believe in.
“Freethinkers” like you are just as much a part of groupthink as any “Religious” person like me, and in the end you only really consider your own beliefs, values, and morality to be right, and inviolable, and are so convinced of its Truth that your willing to impose it onto everyone else. But if I as a Christian tried to impose my beliefs onto a whole society, you’d scream that I as creating a Theocracy, and compare my efforts to Iran. I’d be viewed as a Tyrant who wants to impose my Religion onto everyone else, and be told off as to how wrong I was for doing such. Somehow though, because you have no Religion, and are a Rationalist who only uses Logic and looks at the Facts, using Reason, not Faith, its OK for you to impose your beliefs onto everyone else. Its also wrong for anyone to challenge you on whether or not something is indeed actually Rational. You define what is and is not Rational according to the beliefs you inherit from the education you have received in life, and exclude anything that challenges those assertions.
You won’t even stop and consider, not even for one minuet, that what you think of as Rationality and the obvious logical conclusion could be simply the results of you following the tenets of a Philosophical system that makes presumptions and depends upon subjective points of view.
You won’t consider even for half a minuet that this is as much Faith Based as any Religion.
You won’t consider for even a Second that perhaps this thinking is the same thing you complain about in Religion, and that it breeds the central complains you have about Religion.
Religion is criticised for producing Intolerance, for example, and yet you’ve in the last month criticised anyone who doesn’t roll over to your views on Sexual Orientation, your have condemned Faith Schools as breeding social disharmony and needing to be closed because they don’t provide a proper education, and described belief in God (religion, apparently, to you) as like believing the Earth is Flat and Fairies living at the bottom of Gardens ( and claimed I hurled insults at you for objecting to such, as if this isn’t insulting) whilst claiming Faith is “Easy to gain and hard to loose” as if people like me need to be pitied ( by the way Faith is often not easy to get and is often very easy to loose) and now your actually condemning the United States of America based upon something else you personally disagree with base don shoddy rationale.
In what way is this really not demanding conformity to a set of beliefs? How are you really tolerant of the diversity of thought and opinion others have if you want to use your position to impose your beliefs and values onto others, and seek to condemn others who just don’t agree with you?
In order to arrive at the conclusion that Abortion is not wrong, yet the Death Penalty is, you have to actually agree that the Growing Baby in a Mothers Womb is not a Human person, and that the Prisoner not only is Human and thus entitled to Human Rights, but that its wrong under all circumstances to kill a Human person. Well, unless they are elderly, as some think that a form of Euthanasia can be Justified. ( which begins to make the whole Human Rights argument even more murky.)
But not everyone has bought into the Moral and Ethical Philosophy of the Secular Humanists, and not all of us see it as particularly more Rational than those of other Faiths. (Oops, its not a Faith, it’s the unquestionable Truth, isn’t it?)
If the people you are speaking to haven’t bought into your argument, though, I’m sure you will simply see them as incapable of rational thought. After all, the only people who you will accept as Rational are those who have the same beliefs you have.
Never mind that you don’t even get to know what other believe or why, you like placing people into neat little categories, and judging them accordingly, and using your own standard to judge them.
Still, if someone asked you why the Death Penalty is wrong but Abortion is right, how on Earth would you really answer them? Would you demand they see Abortion as not really Murder? And on what Rational Grounds? Those of Peter Singer who thinks that killing a Newborn Baby isn’t really Murder? Those of others like Margaret Sanger who thought that it should be viewed as some sort of Alien Parasite?
Meanwhile, you are basically saying that the Death of an innocent and helpless baby can be justified whereas the Death of a Criminal guilty of a particularly Heinous Crime is not. This is how your argument will by necessity be viewed by those who view Abortion as wrong, like the majority of Americans. Your argument will fail because its just idiotic to think that we should allow Babies to be Murdered but not Criminals to be Executed. Its Idiocy to think that executing someone for an offence they have committed against other people and society as a whole is Murder, but not the taking of a Babies life just because said baby happens to not be Born yet.
You can say these people aren’t rational and need a better education but that will lea us back to my central point about why you anted Faith Schools closed, it would be less about them not providing quality services or tearing societies apart, and more about making sure all young people are indoctrinated into the same Humanist Religious tenets you personally hold to. You envision a society in which your Values, your morals, and your beliefs about the Human Animal and how we should lead our lives, as well as your understanding of how the would works, is shared by all, and seek to make sure young minds are taught to think according to the dictates of the same Philosophy you use in order to understand the world and our Humanity. Faith Schools teach different Values and beliefs than you have, and are opposed in reality because of this, and so is an entire Nation and its Culture because you simply want to judge everyone according to the beliefs you hold and want to make sure your beliefs prevail in this world.
And your very, very intolerant of anyone who doesn’t fall into line with exactly your own thinking and willing to say that you and others who agree with you have a Monopoly on the term “Reason”, everyone who disagrees with you is Irrational, foolish, and undeserving of any respect.
Yet, you’ll turn around ad talk of Tolerance and Equality. People aren’t really equal thought, because in order to share in the Equality you speak of, they have to abandon their false beliefs and values and embrace those based on reason and Logic, which by happy coincidence happens to be the same ones you hold to.
I find that terribly, terribly Arrogant, and really unconvincing, so, in Traditional Hebrew Fashion, I’ll end were I began.
You have no Moral Legitimacy to complain about the Death penalty while supporting Abortion, because you in the end want people to think its OK to murder babies but not to execute Criminals.
One last:
JSDM, my point wa sin how the subject is approached. Like Jonathan, I am appauled mainly by the approach. IE, in Americ ( Really in VIrginia, STates have differing Laws and its wrong to asusme all States are part of some huge Hegemonic structure) the Death Penalty is nothign like Irans, and the comparitive is just foolish.
Its also foolish to use the owmans low IQ to condemnd the Deaht Penalty totally, as thats just EMotional Pandering.
I also have a problem with how Baroness Murophy tlaks abotu Euqality and Tolerance then offers us none, which is of much greater concern from where I sit. America executes far fewer peopel than it sPublic Schools educate, and in fact, despite haing a Populaiton of 302 Million, Americas execution Rates are far lower than the numer of peopel livign int he United Kingdom totally.
This has always been about Values, Ethics, and Morality, which will alwyas be rooted in our Religion. Baroness Murphey, who insists she has no Religion, still tries desperately to impose her viess onto every topic whilst denying others have the same right and tryign to make sure CHilren “Learn properly” by beign taugh tonly her views.
I find it much more disconcerting that someone can try to dictate morality to others when their own can’t be questioned.
Zarove, because of your beliefs what comes across is your absolute hypocrisy in terms of tolerance.
Society, even the Baroness, tolerate your right and anyone elses not to have an abortion yet your beliefs do not allow for the opposite. Now you may go on to state that in your opinion it is murder, it is not so under the law.
Yours is an opinion of life is sacred and meaningful but can you actually begin to state when this occurs and does it just relate to human beings who are just one of many life forms on this planet. Through your book and beliefs you conclude that humans are above all else and are a special case which is somewhat bigotted in my opinion.
If we did not have abortion, family planning, a way to control our species population do you really believe your God would feed everyone, or is it his wish to see the long arduous torture of starvation ? His wish to see that when the human population who scientifically cannot live in really close proximity with each other kill and mame others ?
I will admit I do not like your God, or I should say how you imagine him to be and if by a miniscule part of the imagination he does happen to be true and has let all this suffering happen deliberately, you`d best let him know one day I`m coming.
I believe even your book states man was given free will, freedom of mind to choose yet you desire to take that away and let suffering happen. How far will you go in beliefs ? Will you stop operations ? The giving and receiving of blood ? Was it your God`s wish to drown all those Pakistani`s in the floods and now let them die of disease ? Am I bad for giving to charity to help them ? Is your Church bad for having all that property and money whilst children die for lack of it, certainly seems that way judging on the teachings of your book ? Or is there more hypocrisy hidden somewhere ?
You are no more special than an ant, or a virus you just have more ability and if that ability is God given it is to be able to control our environment, the suffering and the turmoil to the planet we cause.
We don`t burn witches anymore, nor do we torture those who do not believe as a man made book states. I will tolerate your beliefs and your wishes to live within the democratic laws of our Nation, please do likewise. Should you wish to change those laws we have a full democratic process you`re very welcome to enjoy but at this present time as a minority, that is diminishing, I ask that you do not join the ranks of activists who break the law and cause more suffering in the name of God !
Zarove said
“This has always been about Values, Ethics, and Morality, which will alwyas be rooted in our Religion.”
So before the Christian religions, before Judaism and all others these noble characteristics didn`t exist ? Poppycock !
Matthew, thanks for this, I will do my bit on the twitter thing.
Zarove, Have you thought that neither you nor I can help our belief or unbelief? It;s something deep inside you which feels true to you, the same is true for me. I don’t agree with your views but respect that your view of life and what is right and moral is entirely different from mine. It’s what makes the world go round but let’s not start World War lll over it.
“Arguments for or against the Death Penalty must be made consistently on its own Merit, not based on the peculiarities of individual cases or how other Nations may respond.”
Arguments should be made on the rule of Law which is the ICHR, international convention of Human rights which is law in many states of the world, including the United States; convention meaning international law.
How is it that some of the United States observe the Law and others don’t? It is Federal Law but not state law that hangings and executions may not continue.
Individual US states apparently still have the power to over rule Federal law in their own deliberations.
Most states worldwide have committed themselves in some way, in part, to the ICHR
and committed themselves in the long term to various other parts of it.
Individual states of the USA are committed to it by federal law, and ignore it, whilst Iran
and many Central Asian states are not committed to it by law, but have said they will sign up to the legal drafts as soon as they can, and by set dates.
Some drag their heels in, then, ignoring the set dates for legislation, Iran included.
Carl, you stated your hatred of Religion in another Thread. Of course Religion caused people to be Anti-Abortion, Anti-Gay, and Anti-everybody else. Never mind that not all Religious people are Anti-Gay even if you exclude Atheists from being religious, or even Anti Abortion, and few are really Anti-Anyone else.
But you do prove my point about how you really allow your emotions to cloud your judgement.
Zarove, because of your beliefs what comes across is your absolute hypocrisy in terms of tolerance.
I believe in being fully consistent. it’s a hallmark of Rationality, though because I am Religious I am seen as Irrational. Only Atheists, who have no Religion, can be Rational. Its sort of the point I’m really making here though. People like me aren’t considered to be worthy of contributing our thoughts to society and our beliefs are seen as personal and private whilst others, like you, have the right to set laws according to your beliefs. Its all because of a confidence trick, called Branding. Religion is seen as something of a negative, or a least personal opinion, whilst yours are seen as Fact, and just, and because it’s not Religion, it is what we should base our Laws on.
I ask only why your beliefs are seen as more logical and rational. But you, Carl, hate Religion so of course its Hypocrisy, you need to blame Religion on why your family hurt you.
And no this is not a low blow as your not the only one here whose been abused, though mine wasn’t sexual. I just learned a long time ago I don’t need an external object to blame on all my problems, you haven’t.
Society, even the Baroness, tolerate your right and anyone elses not to have an abortion yet your beliefs do not allow for the opposite. Now you may go on to state that in your opinion it is murder, it is not so under the law.
Under Iranian law Adultery is Capital offence, and yet that’s wrong. Virginia was wrong to commit Murder in the form of executing this woman we are discussing. AT least this is so according to most posters here. If something being Legal makes it not Murder, then why are we criticising Virginia for its Death Penalty? Is the Death Penalty somehow not Legal in Virginia? Is stoning a Woman for Adultery not Legal in Iran? If so, then those also aren’t Murder.
And that’s were your whole argument falls apart. If something being legal also makes it right, then anyone who ever opposed any law they saw as unjust was wrong to oppose it. Wilberforce should never have opposed the Slave Trade, because Slavery was not wrong, it was Legal. Likewise, the NAZI’s never murdered anyone, because the Government made it Legal to kill Jews, trade Unionists, an even dissidents. Why are they so evil? The NAZI regime never actually acted out of accordance to the Law, therefore by this same Logic, never committed Murder.
Or does this Logic only apply to Abortion? Abortion is not Murder because its Legal, but the killing of Jews was Murder even though it was. don’t you think that this is a bit inconstant?
Continued…
Yours is an opinion of life is sacred and meaningful but can you actually begin to state when this occurs and does it just relate to human beings who are just one of many life forms on this planet.
No, it applies to all life. I’m also a Vegetarian by the way. I do love how you make assumptions about me based on earlier prejudices and Atheistic Literature you‘ve read.
While I don’t think eating meat is automatically immoral, I do believe in Natural Law. Before Humanity began to think it could reshape its nature by mere Philosophy, Natural law was used as the base of all Human Morality and Law. Basically, it states that we should try to live within the Natural order of things. While a Human Life may not be necessarily the only life that’s important, Humans eat meat and therefore have the right to kill a prey species for sustenance, much like a Lion or a Wolf does. However, this must be done based upon need, not cruelty.
I therefore oppose on Moral Ground sport hunting.
I also have problems with how the Meat industry treats its animals.
Through your book and beliefs you conclude that humans are above all else and are a special case which is somewhat bigotted in my opinion.
Any more bigoted than making this assumption about my beliefs before you even asked me what my beliefs actually were?
If we did not have abortion, family planning, a way to control our species population do you really believe your God would feed everyone, or is it his wish to see the long arduous torture of starvation ?
Hitler used the same argument. I know! Why don’t we sterilise undesirables! And lets make sure that only those with proper genes reproduce! Yeah that makes sense.
Your still arguing that we should allow Murder, Carl.
I don’t really see how your argument prevents the initial complaint of mine from making sense.
His wish to see that when the human population who scientifically cannot live in really close proximity with each other kill and mame others ?
Need I remind you that this same God gave us Moral Laws that would prevent that if we lived by them? By the way Humans do seem to live in close proximity with each other and not kill each other out. Yes yes Murder happens, but, do you really think most people in London or New York are that Bloodthirsty?
Here is the problem, I think there are better solutions to poverty and starvation than killing our young.
Zarove, you state I hate religions, I think you jump to conclusions more than you suspect I of. I may not like the heirachy nor the way the original thoughts of men who wrote a book were twisted down through centuries but you conmclude wrongly.
” because I am Religious I am seen as Irrational.”
No more so than the man I see talking to an invisible other at a bus stop who is commanding him to do this & that ! The voices are very real to him too and they exist, if only in his head. The fact I cannot hear them or see the people may not mean they don`t exist but I make judgements based on learning.
I see Godwins law has made an entrance.
Regards your charge that I see execution as Murder I am not asking for states to be tried for such nor am I saying they committed it. I do state it is abhorrent, that it is undesirable and most would like to see it changed…..Thereby using the political system as I asked you to do to effect change.
I do not blame Religion for what happened to me, fact is in law at any other point the Pope would be guilty of a crime of helping criminals. The heirachy of the Church is wrong but I did not say I hate all that are Catholics. This is where you as a religious person build up intolerance and hatred by not assessing what someone is saying properly, jumping to wrong conclusions and being utterly defensive. By likening me to Hitler and slave traders you try desperately to darken my argument but the fact remains all you are doing is plain to see, trying desperately to twist things.
Many more things in the above argument are twisted but like many others who won`t enter this debate, because no matter what evidence no one will change you from your beliefs and you will use any and every method to defend them, I give up.
Your last words are there are better solutions to poverty and starvation….yet you evidence none, nor do you defend Religions who preach give up your riches to help the poor from their own hypocrisy.
By the way please read some scientific papers on population density and you will see Social order and criminality escalate with density.
I will admit I do not like your God, or I should say how you imagine him to be and if by a miniscule part of the imagination he does happen to be true and has let all this suffering happen deliberately, you`d best let him know one day I`m coming.
But you don’t know how I imagine God to be, so what your really objecting to is the way you think I Imagine God to be.
And the real problem is, you need to Rationalise why your family abused you so blame the Catholic Church and by extension all Christendom. You bought into these Atheistic arguments as a coping mechanism rather than work on your real issues.
I believe even your book states man was given free will, freedom of mind to choose yet you desire to take that away and let suffering happen.
Actually the concept of Free Will was developed in the Early Middle Ages and “My book” never mentions it. If it did how did Calvinism emerge? That stated, I am not taking away Free Will by opposing Abortion. Any more than I would be taking away Free Will by asking for other Murders to not happen and be proscribed by Law.
How far will you go in beliefs ? Will you stop operations ?
How does Abortion really equate to Operations? Just how rational is this? And given that I owe my own life to a 6 hour operation after an accident, to which I was rather not opposed, don’t you think that I’d be on shaky ground? (moreso than usual for a guy with a spinal injury who walks with a cane.)
Do you even realise how nonsensical this question is?
The giving and receiving of blood ?
Can you explain how opposing Abortion because its Murder is equal to opposing blood transfusions?
Was it your God`s wish to drown all those Pakistani`s in the floods and now let them die of disease ? Am I bad for giving to charity to help them ?
Are you really serious in this question? Because it has nothing to do with the topic and guess what? It proves how fundamentally biased your thinking is. You do realise that in “My book” ( really a collection of books, and I didn’t write any part of it, unless you believe in Reincarnation, I somehow suspect you don’t…) Charity is encouraged, right? And Natural Disasters mentioned. Though at the time periods ( it didn’t all happen at once) no one from so far away helped because of obvious technical limitations. Still, no one really said you shouldn’t give to Charity and your objections are unrealistic.
Is your Church bad for having all that property and money whilst children die for lack of it, certainly seems that way judging on the teachings of your book ?
My Church doesn’t have a lot of Property or Money.
It has a Church Building and Parking lot and a yard. I am part of the Churches of Christ, and each congregation is Autonomous.
That said, my Church also gives money away to those who need it. And even the Church you’re most angry with, the Catholic Church, donates roe money, as well as the most manpower, to relieve Natural Disasters, and to help heal the sick. Do you not know that Missionaries and volunteers from Church organisations have gone into disaster zones to help? Without the resources like property and money those efforts would not be able to be carried out and then you’d complain that the Churches were useless and never helped anyone.
And again, this topic c is not about your personal ad unjustifiable hatred of Christianity. Your really not proving anything here.
“But you don’t know how I imagine God to be”
Or is there more hypocrisy hidden somewhere ?
You haven’t shown nay Hypocrisy in the Churches, only things that make no sense and a willingness to project your personal pain onto everyone else, because you need to. You haven’t learned to let go of the pain and need to make sense of it, and its just easier to have someone to blame.
Still, you’ve given into anger and Hatred, and as a result everything else flows from that.
You are no more special than an ant, or a virus you just have more ability and if that ability is God given it is to be able to control our environment, the suffering and the turmoil to the planet we cause.
That’s nice but… it has nothing to do with Abortion not being Murder.
“Still, you’ve given into anger and Hatred, and as a result everything else flows from that.”
Again purely assumption, hatred is a big word for me. It`s not something I do, I may say generally I hate carrots but I don`t hate them, I just dislike them. 😉
Abortion is not murder but yet again I say if you would like to see the LAW changed to make it so please by all means use the democratic process. The fact remains you cannot but as a minority you wish to force the majority to accept your wishes but I`m afraid I and my ilk are no longer afeared of Hell and virgins from my part of Essex are probably lacking in Heaven. There you have it, you can no longer scare me or offer me incentives that in all probability don`t exist. 😉
We don`t burn witches anymore, nor do we torture those who do not believe as a man made book states.
I like the whole “Man Made book” bit. My biggest complaint with Baroness Murphy is her arrogance and her attempt to force her religion down everyone else’s throat whilst denying hers is a religion but simply reason. She wont admit her Biases. Neither will you.
I will tolerate your beliefs and your wishes to live within the democratic laws of our Nation, please do likewise.
But we are actually a Constitutional Monarchy and you aren’t tolerating my beliefs at all. What your really asking is that I never speak of my beliefs in Public and never ask they be considered when Legislation is being passed. In other words, only your sort of beliefs matter and only your sort of beliefs should be allowed to be used to pass Laws and Social Norms. I’d be given the usual “You’re free in your home or Church” routine, but as I want to do more than stay home or go to Church, I really won’t be Tolerated, will I?
You really just want to demand conformity to your Religion. Yes I know, you have no Religion, you have Reason, same old Tosh. But your beliefs are Religion, and that’s sort of my point about the beliefs Baroness Murphy has. She claims not to be Religious too but its Fairly obvious that her beliefs are based on a Philosophical view of the world that has a clearly traceable History, and still ultimately serves the same purpose as Religion. The only thing that makes her not Religious is her rejection of belief in God, which isn’t really required for a Religion.
Should you wish to change those laws we have a full democratic process you`re very welcome to enjoy but at this present time as a minority, that is diminishing, I ask that you do not join the ranks of activists who break the law and cause more suffering in the name of God !
Actually the “Diminishing’ minority is not Diminishing and hasn’t been for the least 5 to 10 years. Its actually showing small signs of Growth.
That said, why do you assume I ‘m breaking any Laws? And how do I actively participate in Changing the Laws if I don’t, you know, talk about why I want to? Which is what I’m doing here.
This is “Lords Of The Blog” which is a Governmental Website, isn’t it? Its not like I’ve threatened to Bomb Parliament, I’ve just questioned the Moral Legitimacy of Baroness Murphy’s stance on the Death Penalty based on her other stance on Abortion. On what reasonable Grounds do you honestly think that I am about to commit any sort of Crime?
And don’t Atheist activists also go about killing people? Or are we going to use the old cobbler that Atheists never commit terrorism or kill in the name of Atheism? Because in Texas some Atheists recently burned down Churches, and the Soviet Union killed Clergy in the name of Atheism. So did the Cult of Reason in France.
So maybe I should say that because you’re an Atheist you have no morals and are perfectly willing to kill people. Wouldn’t that make sense? Or are Bigoted Stereotypes about Christians allowed and not those against Atheists? If not, why not?
Should I demand you conform to the law and not join an activist group killing in the name of Atheistic Utopia?
Would that even make sense in this context?
Zarove said
“This has always been about Values, Ethics, and Morality, which will alwyas be rooted in our Religion.”
So before the Christian religions, before Judaism and all others these noble characteristics didn`t exist ? Poppycock !
Carl, the point is, no one has no Religion, and the people of no faith don’t exist. When you, or Baroness Murphy, or McDuff, or Richard Dawkins say you have no Religion, all you seem to mean is that you reject Theism. But Theism is not required for a Religion to exist.
Religion is, by definition, a Set of beliefs about the Nature of our existence, its causes and meaning. This is true even of the Definition Baroness Murphy herself posted, although she posted it to prove she wasn’t Religious. ( It sort of backfired, she didn’t read the definition just cut and pasted it known I was wrong when I called her Religious.)
Everyone has a Set of beliefs regarding the Nature of their Existence. You have a set of beliefs regarding the nature of your existence. If you didn’t, then calling me bigoted for how I think Humanity is special and other Animals not wouldn’t make sense. ( Not that it did anyway)
The whole point is that by making Religion something we should avoid in society, and presenting a Humanist Philosophical beliefs system, the people who advocate the things your Or Baroness Murphy ado vacate are Hypocritical. You’re still imposing your own beliefs and morals onto all of Society and desire to have your beliefs and morals enshrined in a special an unquestionable place, and wish to force everyone to go along with it. If I did the same I’d be seen as a Dictator.
Well, that’s how I see the Humanists. Just saying “we aren’t Religious” doesn’t make it feel less constricting to have to live in accordance to the dictates of your “Nonreligious” beliefs, and is you are operating on a premise that explains the Nature and origin and meaning of our existence, then your still ultimately operating within the context of a Religion. You can’t get rid of Religion, its like Matter and Energy, it can only be converted. What I said, thus, is that our morals are always derived from how we understand our existence, and from our beliefs, which is what Religion is. So it’s not Poppycock. You just hate the word Religion being applied to you and think I apply it to only Christianity or Judaism or nonesuch and agree that your not Religious, but you are.
“What your really asking is that I never speak of my beliefs in Public and never ask they be considered when Legislation is being passed.”
Now you`re just being silly, are you speaking of your beliefs ? I believe you are and did I say you can try to pass those beliefs as Law by use of the democratic process ? I did.
Yet again we see a religious person trying to drive a wedge between us by attempting to state non-beievers are haters. It simply isn`t true and you actually make yourself not only look foolish but people won`t want to listen to you.
Again you contrive to paint me as a non religious person when I haven`t stated anywhere near as such.
“That said, why do you assume I ‘m breaking any Laws?”
Did I assume ? Or did I just ask you not to join the ranks of activists who break the law ? I worry of people with such strong beliefs, in a minority, that they may take matters in their own hands. If I had known you would accuse me of something criminal by seeming concerned, something I may have picked up inadvertantly from Christianity, I wouldn`t have bothered.
And on you go, trying to convince someone that every non-beleiver is against you and your kind when it simply isn`t true. You`ll find even here the likes of you and JSDM have had more of the floor than anyone in recent times….No one has complained, some may have ignored you but no one suggested banning you.
The trouble is how I do pigeon hole someone who is paranoid and seems delusional in that he thinks an invisible being listens to him and guides his actions ?
“You’re still imposing your own beliefs and morals onto all of Society”
Actually I`m not but I do have a democratically elected Government unlike most Churches whom you still haven`t defended over their ability to accrue wealth whilst children, people die for lack of it.
I think I should end it just here because I`m beginning to enjoy playing with you because I can.
As far as abortion goes, I believe you are wrong as do the majority of the democracy that we have. The Law is the Law, now you are fully entitled to raise your points, as you have, as I did on the death penalty. No one has stopped you, the Baroness has not banned you, which is quite possible on this medium, and you`ve been allowed freedom of speech.
The principle of Clarity includes putting forward true premisses in support of a true conclusion.
That of Charity includes identifying, quantifying, and quantifying both the true statements & sound argumentations, and the untrue statements & unsound argumentations, of the proponent, opponent, or other participant; and in so dong to show some positive recognition of the opponent’s good-intention, whilst not omitting to spotlight personal dishonesty or hypocrisy.
The principle of Self-Correction likewise includes both retraction of wrong-facts, untrue or fallacious premisses & of invalid argumentation; and willingness to correct more presonal failings such as dishonesty or hypocrisy.
+++++++++++++
Before looking through others’ posts for ‘instances’, I feel a need to internalise what I’ve just written, and do some own-soul-searching.
Then, perhaps like the repentant who was told by God in the temple to go and make peace with homsoever ‘unfinished-business’ existed, and then return to the temple and be received by God as a more honest man than the man who had come to the temple simply to say “I thank you, Lord, that I am not as other men are”.
? ? ?
=================
0013W29Sep
JSDM’s above should read: “That of Charity includes identifying, quantifying and qualifying … ”
“willingness to correct more personal failngs …”
“…make peace with whomsoever …”
——- 0039W29
So why no comments on the men who’ve been executed and just protests at women?
You’re just a misandrist.
Carl, thanks again for proving you aren’t rally very rational. I never mentioned Hell, and on Abortion, you say it’s not Murder because its legal. Does that mean it was Murder in 1966? Abortion became Legal in 1967, and by your Logic, this means that Abortion was Murder one year but not the Next. I had no idea Parliament could change the fundamental reality we live in. As this is so, I have a few laws I’d like to propose.
1: It should never rain on weekends. I’m sure we can get a majority vote to approve this.
2: Trees have Human Rights. I’m sure that once bestowed Human Rights by Parliament they will immediately start to talk and hold down good jobs and even vote.
3: Dirt should not make one dirty. Once this law is passed we will have a much cleaner world.
Of course it wouldn’t really change anything. Parliament can outlaw tides, but they will still happen, because Natural Laws dictate them and are quiet willing to ignore our best demand at halting.
You can’t simply decree that Abortion is not Murder, the topic is decided by Fundamental reality, not by dictates of law.
If it were, then I return you to my question, on what moral ground do we really condemn the NAZI’s? They declared that Jews weren’t Human, and as a result, it was perfectly acceptable to kill them. According to your precise point, Hitler was right, Jews weren’t Human, because German law had ruled they weren’t.
Even the Death Penalty would be not ,murder and you loose any logical mean to object to it. You did join in with that objection to it, Carl, but as the Death Penalty is legal in Virginia, its not Murder.
So why are you complaining?
I`m going to ignore most of this post because it`s not deserving of an answer, you`re just getting more ridiculous as we go on and not helping that which you are supposed.
“Does that mean it was Murder in 1966?”
What did the Law of this Nation state it was then ?
Far far above I stated that I did not accuse those states that use the death penalty of murder, I did state it was an abhorrent practice and one on which I protest against, legitimately.
Zarove, I ask, nicely, that you desist. You do yourself no favours, nor your argument. Please print this out, or show it to someone you respect and can learn from. I mean no disrespect but feel you have a lot to learn.
Baroness Murphy-
Zarove, Have you thought that neither you nor I can help our belief or unbelief?
But my point was, your “Unbelief” is really not unbelief at all, and while you think of yourself as a Rationalist rather than Religious, and that you prefer reason to Faith, the Truth is your beliefs aren’t really different from mine in how they function.
Your unbelief and your nonreligious nonfaith is much like Dan Barkers Nontracts. He is an Atheist who also has no Religion. He runs an American Organisation called “The Freedom From Religion Foundation” which primarily exists to purge society of Christianity.
He produces something called Nontracts. A Nontract is not a Tract but rather the opposite of a Tract. While a Tract contains a Religious message designed to convince the reader of the Truth of its claims, the Nontract is designed to promote Skepticism and Freethought.
But, at the end of the day, the Nontract is a folded piece of paper, with a printed message in it that attempts to convince the reader of a specific point of view. It is, by definition, a Tract. Calling it a Nontract, and referring to it as the opposite of a Tract really doesn’t change its fundamental nature, it is still a Tract regardless.
Referring to yourself as a Rationalist who uses Reason instead of Faith and who, because you are an Agnostic, is not Religious is pretty much the same thing as calling the Printed pieces of Paper Nontracts. Yur beliefs are Religious in nature. Religion was never understood as belief in gods and supernatural powers, but a set of beliefs regarding the Fundamental Nature of our existence.
The Problem I have with you in this regard is that I’ve been insulted repeatedly by you, then accused of insulting you when I simply question the rationality of the assumptions you make.
Its OK for you to dismiss Religion as all Gobbledygoop and to claim that belief in God is like belief the Earth is Flat or Fairy’s live at the Bottom of Gardens, and to do so in the context of claiming that Faith Schools desotyr Social Cohesion. Its OK for you to call me a Homophobe who rejects Science because I asked for proof that Sexual Orientation is a fixed immutable Trait., but somehow its insulting if I question the rationality behind the claim that Faith Schools are destructive to society, or if your beliefs are really any more Rational than mine are?
I simply grow tired of the whole Debauchle. The idea htat because I am a Religious Person I don’t think for myself, can’t possibley know anything at all about Sicnece, and am just blidnly obeying some old book because authority figures told me to like a Zombie is insulting, as is claiming mien is just Faith (Belief without evidence) rather than having any sort of Rational reaoan to believing what I believe.
And that’s bad enough, but to assume that Modern-day Humanist Philosophical Assumptions are inherently Rational and compleltey unquestionable, and that we are to live in a Secular Society in which my beliefs won’t be allowed in public, whilst all major decisions will be made based upon that same Humanism, well, that doesn’t make me feel either Tolerated or Equal.
So when I see the same sort of arrogant presumption, I tend to honour your request to do away with Formality. I am a very Rational person. You may as others imagine me howling in anger at my screen, but I’m not. However, I do find it extremely presumptuous for you to make this sort of an argument against the Death Penalty in the State of Virginia given that someone else can just as easily criticise you for your own Moral Philosophy. Do you really think its invalid or irrational to criticise someone whose OK with Abortion for being opposed to the Death Penalty? Do you honestly not understand why this makes your entire case very different than you intend?
What actual Moral Authority do you even possess to condemn others for something you find repugnant given your own attitude toward something they find 100 times worse than you find Capital Punishment?
Or are we to believe, as has been generally implied, that those who disagree with you are simply not being Rational?
Because dismissing me as an Irrational madman because of my beliefs or acting as if I have no Logical reason to be a Christian has certainly worked in the past.
[quote]
It;s something deep inside you which feels true to you, the same is true for me. I don’t agree with your views but respect that your view of life and what is right and moral is entirely different from mine. It’s what makes the world go round but let’s not start World War lll over it.[/quote]
But if you deny me any voice or won’t even consider my beliefs when dealing in Legislation, and if you feel it is perfectly acceptable to pass Laws based upon your beliefs whilst finding Fault with people like me doing exactly the same things, and if you feel you can impose your beliefs onto literally everyone in Society, causing them to act against their own moral Conscience, in what way can I feel Respected? Especially given the mockery you’ve already levied at both people who have beliefs like mine when talking to others who agree with you, or speaking directly to me as if I am some uneducated and simple minded fool? If I have no voice but to be Silenced, and never Heard, I am not truly part of Society, and if I cannot live by my beliefs, then I am not Free. I am most certainly not respected if my beliefs are seen as Quaint Delusion, or dismissed as impossible to be held to Rationally.
But bare this in mind, I haven’t Targeted you for any special attention or abuse. You’ve posted several things I made no comment on at all since then and I have been around. I simply post when I see the need to post.
But I do have a rather good memory, and am quiet capable of using it. I have certainly lost all confidence in being respected, much less listened to, by you. Hence why I’m not overly Friendly here. Why even bother? I’m a Religious person, therefore Irrational.
Carl, one thing. The Pope is not Guilty of any Crimes. Neither John Paul 2 nor Benedict 16 actually coveredup any Pedophiles. Unless you think they had full awareness of every Priest in each Diocese then you really are stretching Credulity, or admitting God exists. How else could they have known?
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23369148-pope-led-cover-up-of-child-abuse-by-priests.do
A mind-functional problem here is
“the Pope being THE Vicar-of-God on Earth must know all; or else God either knows nothing or is responsible for nothing”.
Lower power-grades (and pay-grades) have a similar case to answer when the Commanding Officer has to take responsibility for any of his troops incapacitating an apparently unarmed enemy; and the Nation-State top-boss having to stand trial in an International Court and thereby be hanged for his army’s war-crime.
————-
One might also find one-self mind-functionally ‘trapped’ trying to see whether a message such as
You do not know how I imagine God to be
qualifies as a logical-proposition, or falls within the logic-glossary definition of “nonsense”.
—————
Got a light, anyone ?
=======================
JSDM234330Sep
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland – in Northern Ireland there are no instituions that are made available for people with mental illness who can live independantly but who committ crime. They are Jailed, medicated and then when their sentence is served they are released – being left to their own devices to ensure they continue with their medication. So with all due respect – before one condems the Americans a look closer to home may be in order. “Care in the Community” was a disaster, resulting in several deaths. I dont think we should point the finger at the Americans – we let killers unsupervised back on the streets. The only difference is the person who dies is, more than likely, an innocent member of the public.
Carl, nice try, but, don’t you think that “This Is London” is a bit less convincing than would be an actual, more reasoned report, or even a more promenant and respected news outlet?
I didn’t click the link as I’ve seen allegations before, but heres the thing, if its over John Paul 2, he’s dead. if its over Pope Benedict, the actual invovlement he had was nonexistant. People just want to jump on rthe bandwagon and blame the whoel Church right up to the Pope and its an absurd prejhudice no different than the Anti-Jewish claims which used a little bit of nothign to convict whole peoples.
To put this into perspective, I’ve heard loads of conspiracy Theories regarding Muslims. Many people htink Mosque in Europe and America has been funded out of Saudi Arabia and is part of the Muslim Brotherhood, whose goal is to conquer the whole wolrd and place it undr Shariah law. The idea is that all Muslims belong to basiclaly the ame o5rginisation whose end goal is subjugation of evryone else. Even president Obama is in on it as he’s a Secret Muslim who is slowly bringign baou the Death of America.
its been proven too, you can visit several websites liek WorldNetDaily were hsi Muslim connections are mentioned while not explicitly sated to allow plausable deniability, and where peopel are lead to beleiv that each Muslim is invovled in subversive activities designed ot take over the West.
Its all Hgwash of couse, and the evidence is a litany of half truths, innaccuracies, and misundertsood facts.
The papal accusatiosn are no different.
I am not a Catholic, but I find attacks on Pope Benedict the 16th as ifhes personallymorlaly culpable ot be in poor taste as they are based on Slander.
But as I said, you hate Christianity and need to bash it, espcially Catholisism, so you will just buy into any old claim wihtout Critical thinkng. I’d not be surprised if you buy into he whole idea that Jesus never existed and is a plagersied pagan sun god. Its discredite dnonsense but it makes Christianity look fake so you shoudl really look into it as its right up your ally.
Zarove is evidently enjoying the Lords of the Blog.
I will say this to Carl. Everythign you accused me of you yourself did to me. You asumed I beelived Humans were special and Animals not for example. Was I beign uneducated hwen you said that?
Don’t you think the accusation that Im tryign to put a wedge in peoopel nd am paranoid is over the top?
My point was simple.
Baroness Murpjhy opposes rhe Death Penalty and has lost respect for Americans over it.She finds the Death Penalty Appauling. Well, plenty of peopel find Abortion appauling, yet she demands we respect her difference of view over it.
Why is she deservign of more respect han she gives Americans who support the Death Penalty?
I fear you missed htis entrley, in yoru mad dash to shwo how an evil Christian cant unerstand what you said an d is paranoid enouhg to think everyone is agisnt him.