One of the fathers that lost a child during the Columbine killings in Colorado made a good point about the problems with kids attitudes today on Fox news.

Does abortion devalue their lives?

I think so. There is no responsiblilty left in this country and people are not accoutned for their actions anymore.

If your going to pull the pants off and take the risk of making a child, then you better be ready to tighten the belt to deal with the child's upbringing etc.

What are your all's thoughts?

KKB

Well, I thought more about my question, are we devalued more now than say, 100 years ago (which ends up being 1906). Well, I don't know. As I thought about it I realized that certain classes of people were probably more devalued than others as well as certain races or even certain nations. Then I thought about times past, how cruel conquering peoples were to their captives and defeated foes, torturing people, enslaving them. So its been pretty crappy in the past and not exclusive to Christians doing it (stink!).

Anyway, so we're probably not more devalued than we have been in the past, but perhaps KKB is still onto something. I'm sure he didn't intend for this to become another debate concerning abortion itself, but on its impact on people in general. We've said that the devaluation probably began earlier and abortion is a result. So can we accept that people were once very devalued, we increased their value along the way, now we're losing it again? If so, why?

^Thanks Rabby.
I do not want an abortion debate.

"we increased their value along the way"
explain specifically.

Kkb, nice reply to my post. I see where you're coming from.

Specifically? Can't really, especially since I was postulating to get us on some common ground so we can discuss what we're really trying to talk about here. I suppose I would say we came to recognise we shouldn't enslave people or torture them. That everyone should be treated fairly and so on. I guess that's be a result of various social movements over the years.

That said, I tend to see the point of Jesse Kornbluth that I read today. Which was basically that we're sliding back into a 14th century way of doing things. Sure, abortion may be a result of devaluing people, but so is torturing suspected terrorists. And was it someone here who provided a link that talked about the idea that you tend to become the thing you fight? Basically Bush has taken our liberties in order to fight terrorists, which is the very thing they sought to do in attacking us. They torture, so we must torture as well since that's the only thing they understand. (eek, going political now) If we're really going to be a beacon of hope to the world, then we must continue to do things the way we feel is right and not sink to their levels. So maybe it gives them some tiny advantage. Perhaps when they see that Abu Ghraib is the deviation, not the norm and that rule of law does matter as does accountability, then perhaps we'll truely start winning the "hearts and minds" of our enemies.

Just a quick word. There are too many unwanted children today, I say let the parents have the right to say yes or no? This is always going to be an argument no one can win, so live with it????????????????

Rabbit: spoken like a true humanist. I agreed with your post above..."we increased their value along the way"
I believe the increase in human worth owes a bunch to the humanists, both secular and religious. Interesting that we do seem to be backsliding now...concomittant with our so called "return to values." america was founded on many humanist ideals, but lately we seem to be getting away from them...and toward something else. Riddle me this: how is the notion of a separation of church and state related to the question of human value?

^Can you please start including dictionary.com links in your posts?

Something like this...

I got a Masters degree and can't figure out half your words. F'n smarty pants.

Last edited: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 1:00:43 PM

To expound on Stinks questions, is it reasonable to question the status and relative importance of god vis a vis the importance of the individual in our society. Putting it another way, does a humanist emphasis upon the social structure heighten the status of the individual in a way that a religious emphasis is incompatible with? I think the coexistence of religious dogma and individual freedom is proof of illusion. Marx was right about a lot of things. I'd get more into it, but I think I'm already in over my head, and emotion will get the best of me, and life is freaking me the hell out anyway.
-
Anyway, I suspect that the average individual has never been more valued than he/she is today. Little Timmy gets the "good spirit" award. Sheena gets the "gallant escape from open goal" prize. Nonsense like that. That may be progressive, but I don't think it's progress.
-
http://www.conservative-truths.com/

^^^ When the church becomes a seat of power, those seeking power will work their way up in the church. The authentic process of God giving grace to the humble gives way to the proud putting forth their own agenda in the name of God. The fruit of the former is compassion and love poured out (See: revivals under Edwards, Finney, and others). The fruit of the latter is God allowing the proud to fall under the weight of their own guilt. (See: Church corruption in the dark ages and televangelist scandals of the 80's.)

See Galatians 5 for more concerning the difference between the authentic and the false. Where does the heart end up? Out of the heart of the man the mouth speaks. Compare the heart of the men in The End of the Spear vrs, "kill them all and let God sort them out."

Riddle me this: What was Kierkegaard going on about? What did that have to do with where Germany was headed?

Last edited: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 2:03:42 PM

Rabbit: btw: I wasn't meaning to jab christianity in the eye with that comparison...i was meaning to highlight a distinction between moral relativism/the absolute. When I said something deriding christians, I mean the people who profess belief (and I meant it in the sense of the many, not all), not the belief itself. People get stuff wrong all the time. Doesn't necessary follow that there is anything wrong with the "stuff." I have observed that many professed christians feel no compunction at the death of non-christians in iraq. I only mention that because I was making a point about the value of life...and how it is relative.

44: c'mon dude. That one was at biggie at my grad program.

Ho: yeah, along those lines...but dogma vs the individual: are they always antithetical? And does dogma always devalue the individual? I dunno.

56: as it happens, I am trying to read kierkegaard in the evenings after my daughter goes to sleep just trying to figure out what he was going on about...i lack context. My brain keeps sputtering out. Doesn't help im brain dead by then

Give me some clues 56.

Nice post...i think that info should definitely be considered regarding my question above.

Regarding the "will to power" and the wrong people seeking power through the church...does this mean anything with regard to my riddle about church/state and devaluation of human beings

Last edited: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 at 4:29:42 PM

Well......... In my own words, I think mistaks do happen at times, Sometimes you think your ready but when your so close. Things start going in ur mind. Making person Do abortion. Abortion is a very sad and bad thing to do to take a childs life, I agree with it. But Abortion also helps person in case they get "rape" and so on ect..... But life shoudnt be taken life, and Life is most valued thing in the univeris. Life has no value because its so well you know. I think they should stop abortion, And start stoping "hookers" from giving out country a bad name any wayz.

Oh and hi PTT. B)

Change of topic.
I watch olbermann clips on c&l., and I watch this one.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/10/10/olbermann-why-does-habeas-corpus-hate-america/
Does this cause equal concern for the more religious among us? The more secular?

^^ Well, 'least your firm in your convictions.
I asked a brief question earlier, I'll try again. Is the logic that the child of an unwanted pregnancy would be better off forced to term than the option to abort? That an unwanted child would be better off born & hope that parents grab the bull by the horns or place for adoption? Or if the option was unavaible to begin with, that people would be more careful in promiscuous behaviour & give more thought into family planning? Maybe if parents didn't have to both work, especially when one or both is averaging 60-70 hrs a week, and had more time to keep a watchful eye & a greater hand with home time the kids would have a better shot as well. For some of us, it's greed, others necessity, but parental guidance for the children that are born would be my guess to prevent a future Columbine. Either way, the fact that the problem needs to exist to begin with is somewhat devaluating. The rest is an option of choice.

@ stink: I think you already have an answer in store for us. ;)

Anyway, what do I think? I guess it depends on how the Church is functioning within the State. Of course, that itself is a little misleading since the "Church" represented an actual organization, not faith or religion. I think it that organization had been more about service than control, then the push for separation might not have been so hard, but I can see where it would have needed to happen eventually since Protestantism lost its monopoly on the country and other churches wouldn't feel comfortable being lead by another church. But to say that since the Church allows for the opportunity for some to abuse power that is should be separated from the State only really shifts the power from the Church to the State without reducing the opportunity for abuse of power. The puzzling part of it all is that the power is supposed to reside with the people or the body, but each group seems to always be willing and eagar to hand that power over to a few, only to complain when they start getting screwed over, but never realizing its up to them to fix the problem and not demand that the machine fixes itself.

So I don't think either the Church nor the State as organizations increase or decrease the value of people, but the ideas and philosophies they promote that the people should embody and express toward their fellowman.

===

This morning the wife and I were discussing adoption and China. Its seems that in China, girls are devalued due to China's population restrains and boys are valued for a number of reasons. So girls were expendable and often killed so the family could try again for a boy. However, now that girls can bring in $30K through adoption, they have value again, as a commodity. So it seems that in this case, too many people made people less valued, which is surely some twisted way of seeing supply and demand in action. Perhaps there's a similar mechanism at work in the US, but in our case, it is self-fulfillment and self-satisfaction that drives us, thus the focus is valuing ourselves over others.

No rabbit, I don't have an answer. I thought I did...but then I lost the thought. And then laggy's post has completely interupted my thought process on the matter.

What church/state means to devaluation of the individual I dunno.

What it means to both the church and state, it seems is that it just gives the power hungry one more avenue for control. State religion? Not good for either the state or the religion. In the end, both institutions suffer. If everyone becomes a christian just by state coercion, what value is your faith? It becomes meaningless, impersonal, mass-produced...completely automated. Perhaps separation of church and state was also envisioned to save...the church.

Btw: having recently learned the 10 commandments, I fail to see the relevance to public education. Why do some people find it instructive in the sense that they find that school children should have daily exposure at the public schools?

Idol prohibition? No gods but me? (sorry there muhammad & kinjee) no work on the sabbath? Coveting the neighbors house?
exactly what those messages are meant to instruct to school kids, I'm not sure. More likely, their inclusion in public schools are meant to signify church ownership of the public school...one more chunk of the country for those that evaluate their religion by accounting technigues.

Which isn't suppossed to be the point, I believe.

^Did I help educate Stink on the Ten Commandments? That's got more irony than I can fathom.

@ stink - you're not being quite fair there, just listing the one's that seem to have little relavance to you. Perhaps those are all little more specific to the Judeo-Christians, but then can't we all get behind honoring our parents, not murdering, not adultry, not stealing, not lying and or not coveting anything that is your neighbor's (including his fine ass)? XD

That said, you make a good point. We don't want cookie cutter conversions or "by the sword" faith. Neither are any good. However, I think most religions agree on a certain moral code, so if there was a way for the school system to support or reenforce those ideas with "God" and the State in agreement concerning their importance, it might be a step in the right direction. A completely secular school system does tend to set itself in oppostion with those with a stronger faith, whereas it could be a place that promotes the ideas and understanding of faith in general.

_{Stink, could you send me an e-mail? I want to ask you something in private.}

Last edited: Friday, October 13, 2006 at 7:25:51 AM

Even if it seems reasonable to assume that promoting "God" in a society should improve the behavior of its citizens, the real world statistical data tends to disprove this idea. The crime rate in highly religious societies isn't lower than in secular ones. Which tends to give credit to Infinite Monkey's theory that with or without religion, people would behave basically the same. Human beings have an innate sense of morality that religious folks tend not to pay enough attention to.

That being said I kinda like the "one nation under God" or "in God we trust" references in the US. These words are broad enough to respect all faiths and even the atheist can take it metaphorically.

Last edited: Friday, October 13, 2006 at 10:31:40 AM

44: yes, you did. I've seen them before but they didn't stick. I should have given you the credit. Coping with the irony yet?

Rabbit:

no, I know I put those in that don't seem instructive and left those out ^. But I take those to be obvious^. The others I find...odd. I'm not sure what the practical use the 10...no, 5 relevant commandments would be to kids who presumably already understand the concepts. For example, I only recently learned the commandments, but I knew better to engage in the last 5. But what's the purpose of installing these commandments in schools: reinforcement by way of prohibition? We know that doesn't work, or no believers would ever have engaged in those unsavory practices. As stan points out, crime rates in heavily religious countries is the same in less religious countries.

Email you? Of course I will...were you going to ask me something about the genealogy of morals . Good thing I kept my cliff notes.:)

Yes abortion devalues children. Instead of killing in the womb, lets take it up to age 18. Bet kids would have a different attitude, heh.

Keep the frickin state out of my kids catholic school. Bastards, I want them to grow up and learn about love and God. Not having to watch videos about the vietnam war and seeing our illustriouse mayor at the time (soglin) take a hit to head the head from a billy club from a cop. Or having a bunch of lefties jam there thoughts in there heads. Ya I got issues.

Keep the church out of politics. If the middle east doesn't make you go hmmm, what will?

:)