What’s news today?
Sadly it’s the tragic story from yesterday that leads the news again today.
From TheHartfordCourant
“After killing his mother in her Newtown home, 20-year-old Adam Lanza drove her car to Sandy Hook Elementary, where officials said she taught, and gunned down 20 children and six adults before killing himself.
Most of the dead were found in two first-grade classrooms, police said.”
The response to this tragedy by some in Congress, as well as the media and Hollywood, I find disgusting. At least wait until these children are buried. Show a little decency and save it for a week. These clowns should be reaching out in support of this community, but instead they’d rather politicize it. Since I find it repulsive, I’m not linking to any such stories and nonsense. You folks can discuss it and link to stories on it in the comments, but I refuse to headline their idiocy.
______________________________________________
In other news, from the Friday Night News Dump….
From TheWashingtonTimes
“The administration has issued stays of deportation for 102,965 illegal immigrants under President Obama’s new non-deportation policy, officials announced Friday.
Another 157,151 applications are still under review under the policy, officially known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, which grants a tentative legal status to illegal immigrants who qualify — though it does not grant them a path to citizenship.”
“Mr. Obama’s program offers a two-year stay of deportation and a work permit so those who are granted tentative legal status can get jobs. The stay of deportation can be renewed indefinitely.”
______________________________________________
So it looks like the whole “Green” scam thing wasn’t just to pay back political contributors to Obama.
There’s plenty of waste, fraud, and abuse as well, some of it from those same contributors it appears.
From TheWashingtonPost
“Three of the country’s most prolific installers of residential solar panels are under federal investigation to determine if they inflated the cost of their work to increase the payments they would receive from the government, according to government and industry officials familiar with the probe.
SolarCity, SunRun and Sungevity have received subpoenas from the Treasury Department’s office of inspector general for financial records to justify more than $500 million in federal grants and tax credits the firms tapped for performing work. The probe seeks to determine whether the companies accurately reported the market value of their costs when applying for federal reimbursement, which was calculated at one-third of the costs.”
“SolarCity and SunRun have been generous political supporters of Obama. At SolarCity, for example, officials in the company and its two key venture capital firm backers, along with their relatives, donated an estimated $579,000 to Obama in 2008 and 2012, according to campaign reports.”
_____________________________________________
And lastly…..
GRINCH ALERT!!!!
From the BillingsGazette
“A group of parents at Chief Charlo Elementary School are so upset over the selection of songs for the school’s holiday music program they are considering legal counsel.
The parents outlined their concerns in a letter sent to the superintendent of the Missoula County Public Schools district, stating, among many issues, they feel the programming is unfair, unconstitutional and is a form of bullying.
“With many of the children in our neighborhood up here being Jewish and Buddhist, as well as a few Muslim and atheist students, we were assured that this year it would be a secular program,” said the letter, which was signed by “concerned parents” but listed no individual names.
“One of the largest complaints last year were the young children singing about ‘their lord.’ This was concerning to many families and it was clear that several of the students were uncomfortable.””
Oh for cryin’ out loud…..
🙄
Wandering Views 
If Christmas offends you don’t participate.
LikeLike
When you come to America, you get what America is.
America is about Christmas, among other things.
LikeLike
Kim — except its a public school which means you have to accommodate everyone.
Chas — true but Protestant Americans first said something similar to Catholics/Orthodox/Jews once they began to immigrate in large numbers but eventually America began to accommodate them and it will eventually accommodate Muslims, Buddhist, etc
Interestingly, my school choir sings Silent Night at every Christmas/Holiday Assembly. My school is 1/3 Muslim yet there’s never been a compliant. We do mention other holy days — Eid, Hanukkah, etc., but I think our Muslim parents generally agree with Chas in that when in Rome …… Some even celebrate Christmas at home (well at least the tree, presents and lights) The fight for the public square seems to be far more intense south of the border.
LikeLike
This reminds me of a FOX news clip floating around left wing sites. Mike Huckabee insinuates the massacre in Newton is a result of removing God from the public school system. His comments are quite similar to some of my religious friends on fb
I’m not sure what AJ means by politicizing the event, but I think it cuts both ways. And this tragedy is being/will be used to not only promote gun control but also to continue the fight for the public sphere as illustrated by the so-called war on Christmas.
Finally, in China yesterday a mentally unstable man entered an elementary school intent on killing children. He wounded twenty. He was armed with a knife.
LikeLike
I think we need to look deeper than “gun control”. As I stated last night, children went to school for decades with guns being legal and no one was shot. We need to look at the video gaming industry that makes games like Hitman. We need to look at the glorification of thuggery in the music industry—It goes all the way back to Vanilla Ice with “rollin’ with my nine”. Riding around “poppin'” someone shouldn’t be something to aspire to.
I grew up around guns. I was taught gun safety. I was taught that more people are killed with “unloaded guns” than with loaded ones and to ALWAYS practice safety. Never point a gun at someone. Never joke around with a gun. Never drink alcohol (anything else wasn’t a worry then) and take a gun out of it’s case. I saw with my own eyes that when a squiirrel or a deer was shot it was DEAD. It didn’t get back up and restart the game.
We do not need to drag politics into this tragedy. We need to mourn with these people. Michelle wrote on her blog about losing her mother during Christmas and how it effected her. Can you even begin to imagine what Christmas will be like in this small town? How many presents have been bought that will never be opened. How many parents didn’t get to tuck their babies in last night?
I live in a small town somewhat similar to this one. I cannot imagine if this happened at the local elementary school. It would touch in some way everyone I know.
LikeLike
HRW if it is a public school and you have to accomodate everyone then do it. Have a Hanukkah program. Have a menorrah and learn the lessons and the stories. Have a Christmas program. Have whatever program the atheist want, heck have it on the same night and have your kids participate in that. Just STOP griping and whining about what others do.
Somewhere along the line I was taught that your rights end where mine begin. It is my right to celebrate Christmas and your right not to. I’ll leave you alone and you can leave me alone and we can co-exist?
LikeLike
America can assimilate Jews, and Buddhists, and atheists. But Muslims don’t assimilate. Look at the places in the Middle East where dictators have been removed. Look at what’s happening in Europe.
There are two religions in the world that are intent, bu direction, to convert the rest of the world to their theology.
They use different methods.
LikeLike
Thoughts on Republican politics for something else to irritate: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/335634/wheres-mitt-contd-michael-walsh#
LikeLike
I don’t really feel like arguing today. My sister-in-law grew up in Newtown; her brother worked as a janitor at the school years ago. They lived there because her parents, Holocaust survivors wanted a safe place to raise their children.
They live in California now, but are very upset right now, of course.
They got that bucolic New England childhood, but I don’t think it will happen again there for a long, long time. 😦
I haven’t read on the story, so this question may have been answered, but, if you had a troubled family member, would you keep a gun in your house?
LikeLike
Years ago, Michael Moore made Bowling with Columbine. Most including me suspected it would be anti-gun rant but it was far more nuanced than that. He looked at countries with similar gun ownership and gun laws (Canada and Switzerland among others) and wondered why they didn’t have school shootings (or as many). He found the difference in the portrayal of violence and the prevalence of fear in the media. Now he was more or less anecdotal in his approach but he raised the same question Kim does when she mentioned video games. I’m not sure how valid that viewpoint is when America mass culture is exported around the world but school shootings seem confined to the US (or vastly more limited elsewhere). I’ve heard other viewpoints — the greater prevalence of an “honor” code/society in the US, greater economic insecurity, greater tolerance/preference for violence over sex, etc
Now the origins of school violence is more of an intellectual exercise which may negate the more obvious issue — school safety. To discuss this now or at anytime is not a political issue but a safety issue and that does mean gun control/use is an issue that will be raised. As I mentioned before, my school is permanently locked as result of an incident in which a mentally unstable entered the school threatening to rape and kill girls. Since he was armed only with a knife, he was easily disarmed by the vice-principal. In China, the man only managed to wound 20 kids because he held a knife not a gun. More liberal access to guns may have changed both incidents. To discuss that possibility is to discuss safety not politics.
When the incident occurred in my school, the parents didn’t want a cooling off period, they wanted action. And this was because the issue was safety not politics.
I refused to watch the news because it hit too close to home both as a parent and as teacher. But I do understand the need to discuss safety and to use past events as lessons learned.
LikeLike
How about instead of Gun Control talk, we talk about what Hollywood is producing, what the music companies are produce, about the video games that are being pushed or about how the left has produce a society that it has lost its moral ways.
LikeLike
Hollywood, Music, TV, Video Games support the following behavior and is what they are pushing onto society.
“all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.
24
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.”
LikeLike
The problem is the left can not face what they have done to this nation and the results of their values, so they must blame the guns for the sad killing of children… Shame on them
LikeLike
No. No I would not. Someone is probably alive today because I saw them drink too much, take a gun out and “accidentally” shoot a stove. I went back to their house, let myself in, and took the gun to his mother. I told her what had happened and that as depressed as he was I feared he would shoot himself.
Even as my father was dying from cancer, I knew he kept a loaded pistol in his night stand. I unloaded it and hid it from him. Who knows what morphine may make someone do.
People who know gun safety tend to think as I do. It is a deadly weapon and as such should be handled with care and respect. Right now no gun in my house is loaded because it has been a while since I have been on a firing range or where I could safely shoot.
LikeLike
Kim — I agree. I’m one of the few teachers who advocate calling it a Christmas program and for the choir to sing Silent Night. This surprised my colleagues but I think even the non-church goers among the parents can appreciate a few good carols as opposed to the “inclusive” commercial schmaltz. I even don’t think we need to throw in some token mention of other holy days but with 1/3 muslim school I suppose the organizers want to feel safe. However, this constant fight over public space is quite annoying — if we allow good traditional Christmas carols in public schools can we forgo the tacky manager scenes in front of city hall?? Deal?
LikeLike
Chas — Read the “Myth of the Muslim Tide” by Doug Saunders http://muslimtide.com/ Its a quick easy read but does a good job dismantling your viewpoint and that of some of the books I know you have read.
Anecdotally, my experience has been that Muslim parents are no different than Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, and atheist parents — they all want whats best for their kids. The perpetrators of violence and those who commit violent acts are for the most part young men with no wife and kids. This is true in the Muslim world as it is elsewhere.
LikeLike
I’m not opposed to that. I live in the Bible Belt. The manger scenes are in front of churches. I’m not big on an overt display of tacky Christmas decorations. My town puts white lights in all the Bradford Pear trees downtown. The stay lit from Thanksgiving through Mardi Gras, it it is mostly a “Christmassy” thing when they are turned on. I collected nativity sets for a number of years. I have two displayed in my house right now (no room for the others) but I would NEVER go buy a huge one to put in my front yard. It just isn’t me.
LikeLike
This is a copy and paste from a real estate coach I am friends with on Facebook. He lives in Connecticut
Jared James
Kudos to those of you that are posting memorial’s of the victims at Sandy Hook Elementary School. To those of you that are posting your political rants on “getting rid of guns because they are the problem” or “everyone should be carrying guns to protect themselves”… please hold your opinions for now. It is not the time. The press conference just started over 2 hours late because there are still dead children laying in the classrooms at the school and parents standing outside the school awaiting the inevitable news that their small child is no longer with them. This has to have been the longest night of their lives and they deserve our respect and to have us mourn with them. Not to use their children’s coffins as platforms to push our political beliefs. My children slept together in the same bed last night and nothing about that made me want to debate my political opinions. I promise you it is the furthest thing from the mind’s of the victims parents.
LikeLike
roy — Michael Moore agrees with you
LikeLike
Except I should add he doesn’t consider the media and entertainment industry left wing just profit making machines who don’t care about the effects of their products.
LikeLike
I guess I have a quibble with the idea that we’ve asked God to leave the schools and so he has (re the many FB posts & comment above at #4). Yes, prayer and Bible reading have been removed and we can debate whether that was a good move. It was probably an inevitable move as the nation became more diverse (and the churches became weaker in the 20th century).
But ultimately “we” can’t take God out of anything. This is His world, His universe, it (and we) all belong to Him in that sense of being His creation over which he rules. God is over all, whether he’s “invited” by us or not. Doesn’t matter. He’s here/there, formally acknowledged or not.
I think it was Billy Graham’s daughter who made the comment that “God is a gentleman” and won’t stay somewhere if He’s not invited/welcome, or something to that effect.
Nonsense.
God has not left the building. His presence and rule are not dependent of our whims. And thankfully so.
It is good when a people/culture/nation acknowledge Him. But His active presence doesn’t depend on that.
“The earth is the LORD’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell therein” Ps. 24:1
LikeLike
As society rejects God and moves away from God to embrace immoral values and views, there are consequences to such actions.
We see God is told he is not welcome in schools, Court Rooms, Council Meets, on College Campus. there are consequences to such actions.
We are told that it is ok to kill the unborn, that the view of marriage between one man and one woman are views of bigots, there are consequences to such actions.
We see Hollywood, Music, TV, Video Games supporting of those actions that God will pull wrath on which is found in Romans 1, will have consequences.
These actions and the consequences of them, I believe are what is producing such behaviors , that we are seen in society but instead of talking about the consequences the left wants us to focus just on one issue, guns. I reason is they are afraid that if it is revealed that their moral values, which they are promoting and push have produce such action. Then all their desire of push God and the Christian Faith out of our Nation, must be changed and all their gains over the years in Education, Unions, Government, Family Values would have to be roll back, and they will never permitted that to happen.
LikeLike
There are, however, consequences for a people turning their backs on God (though I’m in no way trying to interpret cause-and-effect issues in what happened in Newtown; God’s purposes I cannot fathom often times, though I know there is a purpose to all that comes to pass).
LikeLike
Pastor Roy & I cross-posted.
LikeLike
What I would love to see happen is not debate about Gun Control, but a debate on the moral direction of our nation and how it is impact such killings.
LikeLike
A piece worth reading for a biblical perspective:
http://theaquilareport.com/a-voice-was-heard-in-ramah-a-voice-was-heard-in-newtown/
“If we learn anything from this, let us learn that the ultimate cause of the massacre in Newtown, the massacre in Bethlehem, and countless other massacres in between was nothing less than the total depravity of the human heart, and let us remember that it was for this reason that Jesus was born. … “
LikeLike
I know Donna did not intend any cause-effect but I wonder if Roy is asserting one.
I can grant people the theory a lack of religious sentiment leads to a decline in civilized behavior. The Marxist in me would call it a useful tool to keep the masses behaved. However, I’m unwilling to admit individuals are incapable of right ethical choices without a belief in God. I also wonder at the theological soundness of stating God is not present. Or even worse to insinuate by dismissing God we invite such tragedies.
LikeLike
Hollywood is never held responsible for anything they do. We are having problems with our son right now and are beginning to look at the “Kids” programming he watches. It is loaded with selfishness, rebellion against authority and violence. There is also a lot of dehumanizing of enemies, especially among the stuff for teens.
LikeLike
I know Donna did not intend any cause-effect but I wonder if Roy is asserting one.
—
As A Minister I see the cause and effect.. So I am not asserting one, it is a fact. The issue is will we finial as a nation start the hard discussion on these issue or will we just blame the guns.
LikeLike
Those on the left desire us to blame the guns becuase that is the easy way out and they will not be held responabily for their actions.
LikeLike
Also sometimes I read the comments on news stories and You Tube . Many of the comments are horrible and violent and just plain mean. I suspect a lot of the worse are from young people. You really see a lot of the dehumanizing of “enemies”. Of course an “enemy” can be some who you disagree with, a celerity you don’t like or even a victim of a disaster who has the nerve to live in a place that voted for a different party than you did. You also see news stories where after a kid is taunted into suicide they continue to harass their memorial site. So many young people just seem to becoming soulless, almost like they think they have to become tough to the point of feeling no emotion for other people.
LikeLike
They use video games as a training tool in the military because they believe it works to train the soldiers to actually shoot people, not just fire over their heads.
That and the lack of self restraint taught are probably both strong reasons for this sort of tragedy.
LikeLike
I would not be surprised if she kept guns in the house to protect herself and others from her son. Good intention gone awry, perhaps. She may have known he was a threat but been unable to find her way through the system to get the help he needed.
LikeLike
hwesseli: you wrote,
I’m unwilling to admit individuals are incapable of right ethical choices without a belief in God.
In light of what you’ve said elsewhere, how do you know what’s “right”? You’ve already asserted there are no moral absolutes, so how can you ever tell what’s “right”? You’ve even disclaimed the existence of “ought.” So how is it possible that there could be a “right” thing, but that it’s not necessary that people “ought” to do it?
LikeLike
I see in The Washington Times that the town of Culpeper, Va. is trying to increase tourism. In doing so, it is considering rebranding it’s town emblem to make it less political. Long full page article about that.
Bottom line?
I don’t know of a single instance where a person has decided on whether or not to visit a place was influenced by the town emblem.
I could give them a suggestion. For free.
Reminds me of the time when Charleston, SC paid $50,000 on a study on what to do with the site that used to be a big naval base. They decided that a shipping port would be best.
I would have told them that for $5000, with documentation.
LikeLike
Solarpancake beat me to it. I’d be interested to hear hwesseli (27) explain how there can be “right ethical choices” without God, i.e. how can we then know what is right or wrong?
LikeLike
roy and kbells
Both Michael Moore and I agree that the entertainment and media corporations have a role to play in America’s violence, through desensitization and the manipulation of fear. However, this isn’t a left wing plot — Hollywood is a business and it wants to make profits. Pure capitalism dictates maximizing profit and violence and fear sell. Its capitalism pure and simple. Social democratic countries have rules regarding commercials, violence, etc but this interferes with the market place and hence the US media is free to maximize profit.
roy (30) — how are the “left” responsible for the tragedy? I would think a conservative would emphasize individual responsibility (ie the gunman) as opposed to collective responsibility.
LikeLike
kbells — one of the most distressing effects of the internet is easy creation of the “Other” and the ease by which they can be targeted. This has real life effects — the decline of civility and manners.
LikeLike
mumsee — video games and the media in general have created a wall of separation between the individual and society. Its far easier for a soldier to kill if he imagines the enemy as figures in a game as opposed to real people with real lives. With predator drones, it really is a real life video game in which the operator is removed from the very real situation he or she creates.
the Armed Forces has become increasingly better at dehumanizing the enemy. In WWI, the rank and file arranged their own Christmas truce and frequently warned the other side of shelling arranged to impress visiting officers. This dehumanization can easily carry over into civilian life.
LikeLike
From Wes Pruden. I would provide a link but I’m afraid to because it is in my email.
The U.S. Army is soon to issue a handbook instructing soldiers to copy Mr. Obama’s example of when and how to defer to an alien ideology that stands against everything Americans are taught, whether by faith, ethics, morals or another code of good conduct.
The new manual, which runs to 75 pages, orders American military personnel to refrain from saying anything to offend the Taliban in Afghanistan, to be careful not to criticize the practice of sexual relations with children, the abuse of women, beheadings, massacres of girls and the killing of “unbelievers” and Muslims who Taliban enforcers regard as insufficiently devout in the faith.
LikeLike
solar pancake and tychicus,
I simply meant one can do the right thing whatever that is even without a belief in god to motivate him or her.
The ought comment is my error. If there are ethics, there are oughts.
Can one pronounce the oughts without God to validate them is an interesting question. However, I think we need to define what is ethics and morality prior to using it to prove God and/or criticize non-theistic opinions. When one defines morality as an ultimate objective standard by which all individuals ought to live, one can easily see where this definition will lead to — the existence of an ultimate rule giver outside of human existence ie God. If we define morality differently say a standard by which society lives by and by which it perpetuates itself or perhaps we can define it as a standard by which individual lives which if followed will increase human survival. A strict evolutionary definition would probably mentioned the continuation of biological material responsible for choices which perpetuates human survival. Thus if we lessen the longevity and objectivity of moral standards we can easily escape the need for god. And ultimate moral standards do change — look at slavery.
The Science of Good and Evil by Michael Shermer is an interesting look at the neurology of moral choices. He concludes with an interesting chapter on differing evolutionary ethics. I’m not sure if I buy any of them but the neurological basis for ethical standards is an interesting field.
LikeLike
Here’s a link to Chas’ article
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/dec/14/pruden-another-low-bow-to-radical-islam/
I would think the manual is a simple “don’t discuss religion and politics with civilians — its bad manners” type of book. Depending on how you read into it you could reach Pruden’s conclusions but you would have to wear the same tinted glasses.
LikeLike
HRW, armed forces in themselves don’t demonize the enemy. They fight enemies designated by superiors in authorized declarations of war, including the present one against militant Islamic irregular warriors. It is true that warriors, having lost friends to the enemy, often develop hard feelings toward them, though this is hardly the cause of any war.This was as true in WW I, as it is now, notwithstanding the romantic story of Christmas get togethers.
At present it is rather hard for allied fighters who deal with devious Arab fighters who don’t wear uniforms and hide themselves and their weapons among civilians.
LikeLike
I never mentioned left or right, however, while the left may sometimes point a finger at Hollywood on violence they will never ask Hollywood take responsibility on things like the teen pregnancy rate.
LikeLike
Sails — watch any old army training video from WWII and listen to how they describe the Japanese. Its dehumanization
kbells — unfortunately teen pregnancy sell (who knew) but 16 and pregnant is easy to make, generates a certain demographic for advertisers and thus profit for the corporation. If you’re looking for moral condemnation, don’t look at profit maximizing companies.
As for the left, teen pregnancy is barely on their personal radar. It simply doesn’t happen very often to them or their children (due to birth control and abortion but probably not abstinence). Despite inane reality shows, teen pregnancy is on the decline.
LikeLike
From the American Spectator, Dec/Jan 2012/13. I tried to find it on the web but couldn’t. The entire article is worth reading. It’s “Slouching Toward Dhimminitude” by Joseph A. Harriss.
Guy Milliere, a professor of cultural history at the Sorbonne, writes in despair, “France will become a Muslim country. French leaders know it. They will never take a decision that could make young Muslims angry. They have accepted too many things to go back now.”
I couldn’t get a link. Maybe
LikeLike
You can’t make a correction after your post exceeds tha assigned space. It lets you post, but not correct.
LikeLike
roy (30) — how are the “left” responsible for the tragedy? — Because what we are seeing happen over the years is produce by their moral values that every thing is ok.
LikeLike
Chas — the article is for subscribers only. I have a hard time with the idea that French politicians won’t make decisions which anger Muslims. France is proud of their secularism to the extent they banned religious symbols and dress in schools and other gov’t buildings.
Roy — the left values gun control and free mental health.
LikeLike
hwesseli: It necessarily follows from your position that slavery–or killing children in cold blood–is not *inherently* an immoral act. There’s really no room for denying that, as the morality of those things could change, on your view. It’s in that sense that I–and I think Kreeft in his video–would suggest that morality is meaningless if it’s not objective and absolute. If such horrendous acts can’t be condemned as intrinsically evil, they’re just matters of preference, only with different consequences.
LikeLike
The left values death that is why they promote the killing of babies.
The left Values a socity without God, that is why they promote this false idea of Seperation of Church and State.
The left vlaues what is found in Romans 1.
They value God Control because people with Guns will not surrender to freedom to people like Mr, Obama.
They promote the ideas that if you believe in marriage between one man and one woman you are a bigot. Why? Becuase God’s Word declare what marriage should look like and it goes against theit own self interest.
LikeLike
solarpancake
slavery, killing children, etc was once considered acceptable. In most cases, it was only acceptable if it happened to the “Other” — that is, people of different race, class, colour, or any marker which allowed for separation. However, human morality has evolved, we have distanced the concept of the “Other” to such an extent that its rarely used to justify any act. We’ve become more emphatic of a larger and larger amount of people. Jeremy Rifkin’s Emphatic Civilization discusses this point. This animated cartoon explains it.
Now, I’m a little leery of some of his conclusions but the historical broading of empathy is correct. And Steven Pinker’s latest book The Better Angels of Our Nature outlines the resulting decline of violence.
LikeLike
The left does advocate free health care once a child is born.
Only in America (and France) is separation of church and state an issue. In many European countries there is still an official church for which the state collects taxes. The left has never changed that.
In the US, many leftist don’t favor gun control. Yes, I was surprised too. But the left doesn’t see gun control as an attempt to shorten freedom but rather as a legitimate function of law, order and protection.
As for marriage, the left has no problem with churches refusing to sanctify gay marriage but the state should accept it as there’s no compelling secular grounds to refuse it and the state is secular.
LikeLike
hwesseli: That leaves unaddressed the notion that slavery and kid killing are not *intrinsically* immoral, on your view. Or, it may be the case that you did address that notion, and merely acknowledge that such horrendous acts really aren’t inherently evil, and it’s just that you (might) believe they’re bad because of the era in which you were born. I’m not seeing how anything in your view, or the evolutionary one, gets beyond that assessment.
LikeLike
Beyond that, there is no *moral* component to empathy, on the evolutionist view, because why assume that empathy is a moral good, or any kind of “good”? The evolutionist already acknowledges that “good” is merely a temporal construct, with no intrinsic value.
LikeLike
From historical perspective, slavery wasn’t considered intrinsically evil by the religious community at one time. Their position changed over time, hence, the objective unchanging standard you demand in your definition of morality isn’t even found in the religious community.
One could claim there are intrinsic moral acts but they didn’t apply to any with whom empathy didn’t exist. Empathy is a neurological function that seems to have increased over the centuries, ie evolved. Is empathy an intrinsic good? If it contributes to the survival of humanity and its habitat then yes.
LikeLike
okay the first sentence in the second paragraph was horrible. Try again; One could claim there were intrinsic moral acts in the past but these acts were local in that they didn’t apply to any with whom empathy wasn’t shared.
LikeLike
hwesseli: Slavery could well have been considered evil by a hundred people in the past. Would that somehow make it evil, then? But consider the ramifications of what you’re trying to prove: slavery isn’t inherently immoral. I can’t believe you really think that. You don’t, right? Do you really believe that child killing, rape, torture, you pick ’em, are not *inherently* evil? Do you realize that what you’re attempting to prove means that you only believe a certain way because of the era in which you were born and the functioning of chemicals in your brain? That’s not only absurd, it’s sick, and I say that as clinically as I can, not as insult.
LikeLike
“As for the left, teen pregnancy is barely on their personal radar. It simply doesn’t happen very often to them or their children (due to birth control and abortion but probably not abstinence). Despite inane reality shows, teen pregnancy is on the decline.”
Unless you consider that most minorities are on the left. They are way over represented in the single mother category and the main reason a lot of Red states show up on the top of these list.
LikeLike
And due to abortion I suspect that teen birth is on more of a decline than teen Pregnancy.
LikeLike
solarpancake — I’m only asserting the application of morality was not equal nor universal in the past. And biblical and religious history concurs with me. It seems the notion of a universal intrinsic set of morals is relatively new, previously moral laws applied differently to different sets of people by different sets of people, hence its hard for anyone to claim they exist when historically they did not.
kbells — You’re right it was birth rates. But abortion rates for teens are at their lowest levels since Roe vs Wade. Both births and abortions are down.
Separated by race, birth rates for non-Hispanic white teenagers is highest in the Southeast and lowest in the Northeast. Hispanic and black teenagers have similar birth rates throughout the country. Thus, the only anomaly is the regionally difference of white teens. Red state higher birth rates are then the responsibility of white teens.
LikeLike
hwesseli: You’ve been asserting that morals are not absolute, referring to the beliefs of some set of people in the past. That simply doesn’t follow. It doesn’t disprove absolute morality. I disagree biblical history concurs with you. Chattel slavery–kidnapping–was a moral wrong in scripture. You may deny that characterization; fine, pick a different one. Murder of children. Not regarded as a moral good in scripture. The notion of a universal set of moral laws is older than the scriptures.
But that’s beside the point, which is that your view does not allow for any act to be regarded as morally wrong. I’m beginning to think you’re dodging that allegation. There simply is no way a view such as yours can make an absolute moral claim–you’ve already stated as much–and so you can’t call the murder of innocent children an absolute moral wrong. It’s discouraging to see intelligent people arguing that way.
LikeLike
Revisiting your earlier comments, hwesseli, you’ve said:
I’m unwilling to admit individuals are incapable of right ethical choices without a belief in God.
and
I simply meant one can do the right thing whatever that is even without a belief in god to motivate him or her.
But at the same time you deny the existence of right. “Right” isn’t right if it’s just preference. Right isn’t determined by epoch, majority, or might. You can’t have it both ways, and it’s unfortunate anyone would hold a view that precludes the existence of true right.
LikeLike
Hwessel, the rates I saw were for single mother house holds and it was all over the place with some Southeastern states low and some Northeastern states high. My guest is that they are counting girls who marry young and then get pregnant or who marry the father. which would include several members of my family
LikeLike
kbells — I suspect there is some truth to your guess. It may account for the extraordinary high birth rate among Hispanic youth, who traditionally have married early. Teen pregnancy no matter the circumstance is one of the best predictors of future low income. Thus, in discussing teen pregnancy rates, we should still include those who marry the father — which is simply making the best of a bad situation (and probably contributing to the higher divorce rates of red states/south). Teen pregnancy no matter the circumstance is one of the best predictors of future low income and thus the bane of the upper middle class who tend to be liberals.
LikeLike
Everyttime something like this happens the Right calls for more God and the Left calls for more gun control. 50 years ago we had more God and less gun control and this sort of thing seldom happened.
LikeLike
solarpancake — I’m asserting in reality morality isn’t absolute. It doesn’t matter what you and I think, in reality morality does change.
Anthropologists and others have collected what they call the core taboos/morals/standards that all societies have in common. We could call those are absolute morals if you insist. Most of these are pretty standard — no incest, no murder (that one has exceptions), — generally all standards are associated with the propagating a healthy family/tribe/clan. This fits into the theory that we are expanding whom we are concerned from family to tribe to nation to class/religion/ to all people by taking those standards which used to be applied only to members of the immediate family and apply it universally. So yes there are standards and yes it is changing.
You seem to be hung up on the need for an absolute right, a platonic ideal if you will. I think most intelligent people realize Plato’s Ideas/Forms were metaphorical and don’t really exist (ie there is no Ideal Chair). Similarly, there is no metaphysical Ideals — there simply is. This doesn’ t preclude right and wrong, it simply precludes a supernatural justification of right and wrong. Do we really divinely ordained morals to compel people to behave? Regardless of beliefs, most humans and the society they live in have the same universal standards by which they live. One can contend that without these universals, a society would not flourish and hence these morals evolved to better our survival — morality developed through natural selection if you will. As societies expand, these standards expand with them.
As for the existence of behavior contrary to these standards, scientists have noted neurological differences in psychopaths. These are the outliers which continue to survive through either genetics or environmental conditioning or more likely, both.
LikeLike
kbells — I wonder about the less gun control portion of your statement — carry and conceal permits weren’t available in the 50s nor was the definition of self-defense expanded. I also caution about mixing correlation and causation. The late 50s and 60s were also the height of the middle class with high taxation on the rich and far less inequality. Thus, high taxes and low gun violence correlate but are they causally related? Or is it far more complicated. One could also note the 50s/60s were the low point for violence in America. Prior to WWII, America was more violent than in the 50s. Hmm, the greatest expansion of the middle class (the 1950s) = a decline in violence. The decline of the middle class (1980s) = a rise in violence. Correlation or causation
I thought this was a reasonable column by Kristoff
LikeLike
hwesseli: I’m not “hung up” on anything aside from using terms with meaning. “Right” and wrong are meaningless if they’re shifting over time. I’m not talking–and you should have perceived this–about what societies do to function and accomplish this or that. There is nothing–in the slightest–in any of what you’ve said that gives you grounds for condemning something for moral reasons; you can only condemn something because is doesn’t go toward accomplishing X. That’s preference. You’ve avoided the objection raised against what you said earlier–that you speak of ‘right,’ but cannot account for the existence of it based on your assumptions about reality. That’s double talk. What’s worse is that you cut off any ability to call something like child murder an absolute wrong. I don’t have to condemn such behavior as wrong “if I insist,” I call it wrong because it certainly IS wrong. I no longer judge it as sad and unfortunate that you can’t do that, I consider it despicable.
LikeLike
You’re right, child murder is wrong. Now you justify this assertion by citing the Christian God. A Buddhist will also say child murder is wrong and his basis will emerge from the teachings of Buddha. In fact, every society has stated child murder is wrong using some sort of divine/philosophical/ideological reason. The real reason is simple — they’re neurologically incapable of different (mentally ill and psychopaths exempted). As long as we share some sort of empathic reaction, child murder is considered wrong. The evolving point I make is that we share this empathy with more people than ever before and hence our standards are becoming more universal.
LikeLike
You start well, then contradict yourself. “Child murder is wrong” is correct, but to say merely that “child murder is *considered* wrong” is an entirely different proposition. Where is there in anything you’ve written anywhere that allows for the statement that child murder is objectively, intrinsically, absolutely wrong. Nowhere. To cite a few thousand years of far-from-unanimous, and *still* far-from-unanimous, opinion on the matter doesn’t give any grounds for condemning something on moral grounds. And even if there is a trend, who says it’s a “good” trend? That we’re trending toward the “good”? What a horrible mishmash of morality you espouse. How awful to hold a view that doesn’t allow one to condemn child murder as absolutely wrong.
LikeLike
Of course my view allows me to condemn child murder as absolutely wrong. I’m just explaining how we arrived at that position. According to you if a moral is to be absolute, objective and intrinsic, its origins must be divine but why? What does making it a divinely ordained moral add to it in real terms?
LikeLike
Of course my view allows me to condemn child murder as absolutely wrong.
Not so. You’re equivocating. I’ll ask again, ” Where is there in anything you’ve written anywhere that allows for the statement that child murder is objectively, intrinsically, absolutely wrong?”
You’ve offered that things are “considered” wrong, and that our understanding of right and wrong are merely outworkings of biology and culture. Where is there anything in any of that about objective, intrinsic, absolute wrong? It’s obvious why morality would be those things if it were grounded in a being with the authority and ontology to declare them such. But how can one suggest that anything objective, intrinsic, and absolute could arise from mere matter? That’s for you to explain.
What does making it a divinely ordained moral add to it in real terms?
Because of “ought.” Otherwise, morality is merely avoiding a matter of avoiding penalties.
LikeLike
That should read, ” Otherwise, morality is merely a matter of avoiding penalties.” Preference does not justify prescription.
LikeLike
It’s obvious why morality would be those things if it were grounded in a being with the authority and ontology to declare them such.
And where did the “being” receive the authority to declare them such? If you state its intrinsic to the being, you are only moving the question backwards. You need to then to prove the being is capable of such an act (without arguing from definition).
The only difference between you and me is you move the question back and then declare a “being” naturally able to declare a moral objective and intrinsic. You say “being” and I say “neurological compulsion”. At least I have science and emprical data (anthropoligical and medical) on my side.
Morality is more than avoiding penalties. Its neurological compulsion. Its natural selection in action. Its evidence of evolution. Its the continued and expanded tradition of our past histories. For me that’s enough to declare it an “ought”, I don’t need to add a “being” since I don’t see any evidence that this act will add anything to the value of a moral standard.
LikeLike
The God of the Bible requires no authority—and that IS by definition. There is nothing “backwards”—in back of—God. Of all people, the Christian most certainly does NOT move the question backwards. Good *proceeds* from God’s character and essence. If you’re familiar with how Scripture defines God, you know there’s nothing behind God, transcendent to him, or to which he must appeal to justify himself.
You have no more empirical data on your side to declare moral “oughts” than anyone does. Ethics is hardly a matter of neurons and biology, etc. Those things can do a fine job of *describing* stuff—and the Christian is just as capable of availing himself of such tools as you are. But there’s an infinite difference between describing a few characteristics of certain cultures here and there, and describing how synapses and digestion and photosynthesis work—there’s an infinite difference between that and discerning *objective, intrinsic, absolute* right and wrong.
You’ve yet to give any means whatsoever to show how we can go from looking at chemical firings in the brain to moral right and wrong. You’ve yet to show how the most you can do is describe a system of preferences—which aren’t even universally shared—and which are merely determined by impersonal forces. Well, majority rule and impersonal laws of physics don’t justify prescriptive moral declarations. That’s why you HAVE to preface your last sentence with “For me that’s enough….” Yeah, but for other’s, they conclude differently than you. Others come up with various reasons to justify child killing. Your system of preferences has no authority—beyond force of law, for the time being—to make moral declarations against such horrific acts.
LikeLike
Of course for others it isn’t enough — for one reason or other, some people are conditioned or need a supernatural explanation.
Its interesting you posit an objective set of moral standards based on the existence of God but a few days ago you approved of a video which “proved” the existence of God by the existence and/or need of/for an objective moral standard. This is circular reasoning.
Your assertions and claims are derived from a definition which is arbitrary. You define a being and then claim moral justification due his definition. Its rather convenient but meaningless.
Many religious traditions justify their moral standards with an appeal to a Being. They define their being in a similar manner as you and they appeal to their scripture. When two religious traditions conflict whose objective standard is correct? And what external proof do we have that one tradition has the correct definition of the Being?
When a set of moral values or preferences is neurologically compelling, it requires no authority to stand, it has and will stand because that’s how the human brain thinks. Its no more impersonal than an appeal to a non-human authority. In practical terms this appeal to an external authority adds nothing to moral standards unless you already believe in the authority.
LikeLike
hwesseli, so pretty much every bad thing in the world Capitalism fault?
LikeLike
I am 56 and personally remember that a lot of this started in the 60’s, the height of the middle class. Now we are pretty much living with the offspring of the self obsessed 60’s generation.
LikeLike
Of course for others it isn’t enough — for one reason or other, some people are conditioned or need a supernatural explanation.
Of course, that’s not what I was talking about. You allege some form of absolute (and you do that entirely arbitrarily, as “absolutes” simply cannot be derived from a few chemical reactions and tribal traditions), then claim that establishes moral authority. The “others” I was referring to were those who disagree with you about murder, rape, torture, etc. Your preferences don’t trump theirs merely by virtue of them being *your* preferences, or the preferences of some arbitrarily stipulated number of people. You have to appeal to a *transcendent* authority to establish “oughts” that way.
Its interesting you posit an objective set of moral standards based on the existence of God but a few days ago you approved of a video which “proved” the existence of God by the existence and/or need of/for an objective moral standard. This is circular reasoning.
No. I have to think you can follow the argument. I posit an objective set of moral standards based on human experience. I KNOW that child murder is absolutely wrong, and that slavery (kidnapping) is, too. It doesn’t matter what percentage of people agree—whether now or in the past—but those evils were and are objectively, intrinsically, and absolutely evil. They are actually evil. You can’t make that same statement. The most you can do is say you *think* they’re wrong based on reactions in your brain and your association with a few other folks who think the same way in the era in which you live. You can’t be sure you won’t believe differently tomorrow, nor that the world will one day call “wrong” what you today call “right.” And it’s entirely possible the makeup of the human brain will confirm *those people* in the way you think it confirms you today.
So given that there is an absolute right and wrong, what is necessary for that to be the case? Not brainwaves, not tradition, not preference or majority rule, but an absolute lawgiver. An absolute lawgiver is necessary for there to be absolute right and wrongs. And oughts. Your stipulation that something be “neurologically compelling” to somehow suffice for moral authority is arbitrary. Extremely so. Just as is “expand[ing] tradition of our past histories.” Who says that’s good? Who says the parts of that history you regard as good are really, actually good? What non-arbitrary standard do you appeal to for such a claim?
My entry into this discussion started with asking you to justify your references to “right” behavior. You haven’t justified your use of that term. There can’t even BE justification for that term if it’s not absolute and objective. How else could it be? If it’s arbitrary or temporal or preference, etc., what meaning does it have? And what authority can it have?
LikeLike
kbells — not capitalism — economics. If giving a choice between an economic explanation and an other explanation and all else is equal, I will take the economic explanation. Violence is higher in a society with high inequality, its a simple statistical fact
LikeLike
So you posit a set of standards which by necessity must be absolute which in turn is a proof of Gods existence. These standards you base on human experience. Thus we have the same starting point and thus your criticism of my position can be applied to yourself — whose experience? which experience do we validate and which do we not? You need a criteria and if you use God as your criteria, you are reversing your argument. That is, the claim would be absolute morals exist because God does, which is the opposite of the claim which started the paragraph. Circular reasoning.
Its entirely possible the human experience will change. Our moral standards have changed — in the past slavery, child murder, etc were permitted even divinely sanctioned as long as it occurred to the “Other”. But as humans widened their experience and those considered “Other” became a smaller and smaller group, moral standards that once applied only to the immediate family began to become universal. Now its entirely possible, these standards may change but its highly unlikely as these standards have contributed to the continued survival and progress of humanity.
LikeLike
No, again. I posit the only two possibilities, then examine their ramifications. Morals are either absolute or they’re not. If they’re not, you can’t do what you do and talk about “right” behavior, etc. That’s the way words work, that’s the way philosophy and ethics work, and that’s how logic works. *Preference* does not equate to rights or wrongs. Material functions do not justify rights or wrongs. Word salad doesn’t make those things so.
I don’t *base* the standards on human experience. I’m saying that human experience—our sense of indignation at little ones being shot to death in cold blood, or millions being gassed to death—confirms that there are *absolute, intrinsic evils* in the world. We recognize that those events are objectively evil because they ARE, not merely because a few chemicals combine in our brains a certain way. Do you suggest that child murder was ever intrinsically good? Or is the most you can do is say it’s value-neutral? Was slavery right when it was regarded as right? Why do you refer to those things as though they were actually wrong? On your presuppositions, how can we know that at all? Why are any of your stipulations about survival of the species to be accepted as “good” things? Who says? Species dying out is just a thing. How is it that you non-arbitrarily attach moral value to it?
But by your language, you do assert right and wrong. Necessarily, you contradict your claim that there are no absolutes. Necessarily, you forfeit authority for declaring what *ought* to be, and for condemning any behavior on moral grounds, aside from arbitrarily stipulated ones.
So you acknowledge standards may one day change. If they were to change, and one day slavery and child murder were seen to be good, would it therefore be justified for one such as yourself to believe those things to actually BE good? Because that’s how you’re sounding. You don’t have any safeguard against such an occurrence.
LikeLike
Could it be inequity plus a sense of entitlment? “I want what you have because I’m special and I deserve it. Disney told me so.”
LikeLike