Tuesday, April 27, 2004
We hold these truths to be self-evident...: A thought just occured to me: if the Declaration of Independence is, in Lockean terms, the American social compact (i.e. the shared ideas and principles that Americans agree are necessary in order to hold our society together and give our government a basis to govern) I wonder how many Americans truly believe in the principles espoused in the Declaration anymore?
And if they don't, what does that mean for our nation?
(0) comments
And if they don't, what does that mean for our nation?
Monday, April 12, 2004
Great article: John Fund with a wonderful article on how Congressman Davy Crockett came to believe in the principles of limited government.
(0) comments
Friday, April 02, 2004
Follow the timeline: Ann Coulter with a particularly illuminating look at the timeline of U.S. action against terror, pre and post 9/11.
(0) comments
Christianity, evolution, and hypocrisy: Great article on the use of taxpayer funds for pro-evolution groups to tie religion and evolution together. Where is the outrage?
(0) comments
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Comparing abortion and slavery: I have been thinking/reading/praying a lot about abortion recently, due to the activity in Congress and the challenges to the partial-birth abortion ban. I was rereading over lunch a sermon on abortion delivered by Tim Bayly earlier this year. In this sermon, he asks us to consider the similarities between Dred Scott v. Sanford and Roe v. Wade. He thought that the common man who defended Dred Scott in the 1850s would sound awfully similar to the common man who defends Roe today. Listen to his thought experiment, and I think you will notice some stunning similiarities:
"Although a slave/fetus has a heart and a brain, and is human from the biological perspective, a slave/fetus just is not a legal person under the Constitution. The Supreme Court made this perfectly clear in the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade decision.
A man/woman has the right to do whatever he/she pleases with his/her personal property, the slave/fetus.
Both the social and economic burdens which will result from prohibiting slavery/abortion will be unfairly concentrated upon a single group: slave-holders/pregnant women.
Isn’t slavery/abortion really something merciful? Isn’t it really better never to be set free/born than to be sent ill-equipped and unprepared into an environment where one is unwanted, unloved and bound to be miserable?
Those who believe that slavery/abortion is immoral are free to refrain from owning slaves/having abortions; they should give the same freedom to those who have different moral beliefs.
Accordingly, those who believe that slavery/abortion is immoral have no right to try to impose their personal morality upon others by way of legislation or a constitutional amendment.
The claim that slaves/fetuses are like us is simply ridiculous; all one has to do is look at them to see that they are completely different.
The anti-slavery/anti-abortion movement is in fact a small band of well-organized religious fanatics who have no respect for democracy or the principles of a pluralistic society."
Bayly also asks us to draw parallels between arguments made by those against slavery in the 19th century and abortion today:
"The question of whether slavery/abortion should be tolerated is not a matter of personal or religious belief; it is a question of protecting the civil rights of millions of innocent human beings who are not in a position to protect themselves.
The humanity of slaves/fetuses cannot be denied simply because they look different from us; there is no morally defensible way to draw a line somewhere along a continuum of skin color/(fetal) development and claim, 'This is where humanity starts, this is where it stops.'”
Source: Sermon delivered by Tim Bayly on January 22, 2004, in Indiana State House. The parallels themselves did not originate with Tim, but are from Patrick Derrr, "The Argument" & "The Question," Human Life Review, Vol. V, no. 3, 1979, pp. 77-83.
(0) comments
"Although a slave/fetus has a heart and a brain, and is human from the biological perspective, a slave/fetus just is not a legal person under the Constitution. The Supreme Court made this perfectly clear in the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade decision.
A man/woman has the right to do whatever he/she pleases with his/her personal property, the slave/fetus.
Both the social and economic burdens which will result from prohibiting slavery/abortion will be unfairly concentrated upon a single group: slave-holders/pregnant women.
Isn’t slavery/abortion really something merciful? Isn’t it really better never to be set free/born than to be sent ill-equipped and unprepared into an environment where one is unwanted, unloved and bound to be miserable?
Those who believe that slavery/abortion is immoral are free to refrain from owning slaves/having abortions; they should give the same freedom to those who have different moral beliefs.
Accordingly, those who believe that slavery/abortion is immoral have no right to try to impose their personal morality upon others by way of legislation or a constitutional amendment.
The claim that slaves/fetuses are like us is simply ridiculous; all one has to do is look at them to see that they are completely different.
The anti-slavery/anti-abortion movement is in fact a small band of well-organized religious fanatics who have no respect for democracy or the principles of a pluralistic society."
Bayly also asks us to draw parallels between arguments made by those against slavery in the 19th century and abortion today:
"The question of whether slavery/abortion should be tolerated is not a matter of personal or religious belief; it is a question of protecting the civil rights of millions of innocent human beings who are not in a position to protect themselves.
The humanity of slaves/fetuses cannot be denied simply because they look different from us; there is no morally defensible way to draw a line somewhere along a continuum of skin color/(fetal) development and claim, 'This is where humanity starts, this is where it stops.'”
Source: Sermon delivered by Tim Bayly on January 22, 2004, in Indiana State House. The parallels themselves did not originate with Tim, but are from Patrick Derrr, "The Argument" & "The Question," Human Life Review, Vol. V, no. 3, 1979, pp. 77-83.
