Anomaly

Election Results & Comments

115 posts in this topic

You can ascribe empathy and introspective thought to a God given ability or God talking to you or an normal behavior part instinct and part needed & learned social behavior.   

Applied empathy is both good for society and desired by most religions.   Rational thought is also good for society and desired by most religions.   

If we can both agree that a zygote is a unique human person in it's developmental journey to eventual death of natural old age,  isn't the argument wether the atheist was led to that conclusion by God or the Christian was led to that conclusion by rational thought, secondary to the primary goal of protecting human life from beginning to end?  What, how, and why we do with that life (and any after) can de debated later.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Congrats on all US friends on electing the first pro-life president since Ronald Reagan!

If all the liberals are moving to Canada, I just might move to the states!

Choo-Choo!   The Trump train arrived in Washington!!!! 

dominicansoul props this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Anomaly said:

Soc,

I think you would be surprised if you dig a little more into defining "personhood".  An atheist is not a synonym for sociopath.    There are lots of reasonable arguments for determining personhood. 

Are you even aware that the Church at one time, considered the embryo as mere tissue until "ensoulment?"    That the baby needs to breathe to receive the "breathe of life" as described in Genesis?

Being anti-abortion or trying to determine personhood and protecting them with laws is not solely the realm if diests.  Don't be so quick to disregard potential allies.  

First, I never said that atheists do not believe in rights, or that all would deny human rights to others.  My point was that for the atheist (if he is logically consistent with his atheism), rights (including the right to life) rest on higher authority than man.  Rather than all men being endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights, it is man that creates rights and "personhood" and confers them on his fellow man.

If man is the creator and giver of rights, these rights become ultimately arbitrary, and dependent on the whims of those in positions of power, or of society at a given time.

I don't doubt for a minute the sincerity of your pro-life convictions (even if I sometimes doubt the sincerity of your atheism), but how would you argue against another atheist who holds to the Peter Singer school of utilitarianism that a human being is only a person if he has a certain level of cognizance or sentience, and claims that an undeveloped human fetus or embryo has no more sentience than a fish, and is therefore not yet a person with a right to life?

You may "feel" that all human life is "sacred" and inherently deserving of protection, but many others may not feel that way.  If the right to life is based on no higher authority than the human brain, who's to say who's right?  It all becomes subjective.  (And, at least according to the surveys, the overwhelming majority of atheists are in fact "pro-choice" on the abortion issue - much less likely to be pro-life than religious people.  I don't believe that's a coincidence.  You still seem to maintain overall a very Christian moral philosophy.)

If man alone is the source and giver of rights, then a general right to life is determined either by government or legal authority (which in the U.S. denies the right to life to the unborn), or by democratic consensus or societal norms (and most people in our society are accepting of at least some abortions).  Thus, without belief in something higher than man, the right to life rests on a very shaky basis.

13 hours ago, Peace said:

I generally agree that athiests don't have any solid basis for holding certain basic ideas such as "it is wrong to kill" or what have you.

But most people, whether believers or athiests, do agree to a large extent on certain basic moral principles, and have a basic moral sense of right and wrong. That moral sense comes from God in both cases. The athiest just refuses to acknowledge it.

Since most athiests have a moral sense and hold many of the same moral principles as we do, solid pro-life arguments can be made, based on these principle, without making an appeal to religion. You have plenty of "Godless" pro-life athiests such as Anomaly as the proof that this is possible.

I won't speak for Anomaly, but he was a Catholic Christian most of life, before becoming atheist several years ago.  He seems to maintain a lot of respect for Catholic moral principles, but many atheists do not share them -  as shown by the overwhelming majority of atheists not believing the unborn are persons with a right to life.  

Yes, obviously atheists can be pro-life, as the natural law is written on the hearts of all men, but they have less logical ground to back up their convictions.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Soc,

Out of respect for dUSt, his site, others beliefs, and my beliefs of messy tolerance, I'm not going to argue with you about what atheism believes.  

Any defifinitions are relatively arbitrary and dependent upon the contextual understandings of society and cultures.  You can't point to a single divine utterance that unassailably defines and determines what exact nanosecond a Person becomes a Person. Catholic philosophers have struggled and evolved about that for centuries.  As has Aristotle and Socrates and many other philosophers.  

Peter Singer's utilitarianism is easily refuted because it is so narrow, asks for judgements based on narrow factors, and too easily dismisses long term effects of principles for short term goals of principles.   If utilitarianism is an act for the greater good of the greatest number, you also have to consider the effect on society beyond your short life span.   We are social creatures living a short life, but part of a society that proceeds and follows our life.   If we already move beyond acting as a sociopath, we see the value of ourselves and others.  Empathy.

You can call the person recognizing their individuality and a part of society Divine Natural Law.   Or, it can be called evolved genetic instinct and learned cultural behaviors.    I, like most people, can leave that definition to others and struggle to operate as a Person; a cognizant and tolerant individual responsible to my opinion of myself and as a cognizant and tolerant member of a larger society, tempered with both limited confidence and limited humility.

The right to life and who/what is a Person, IS on very shaky ground.  Humanity has struggled with that for eons.  Faith in Catholic Christianity alone is not the panacea for it all.   Rational, logical, philosophy and scientific thought is needed as well.  Catholic railing against Modernism is not against logic and pondering, but against philosophy and science without its God.

Fine.   We can disagree on a "Divine" regulator as defined by a few Religions in the recent couple millennium, but human society has been evolving and developing human wisdom and successful societies (mostly for good) much longer.  Christianity had its heyday and its theological philosophy aided society, but  Christianity Faith/Beliefs was/is not the sole source of morality, and is not without reason and logic.  Of course sane reason and logic philosophy often appears as Judea/Christianity.  And visa-versa.  

Edited by Anomaly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me is secretly amused by some of the histrionics coming from the elitist left. Though some have fears that are understandable. We're in completely new and uncharted territory having elected a total political outsider. 

My prayers are always with any new president no matter what party they are from. 

Quasar props this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Part of me is secretly amused by some of the histrionics coming from the elitist left. Though some have fears that are understandable. We're in completely new and uncharted territory having elected a total political outsider. 

My prayers are always with any new president no matter what party they are from. 

Actually, Trump will be The sixth president who has not held prior public office.  Eisenhower was the most recent.  

Considering that the President has to appoint thousands of bureaucrats right off, you can see that the political machine has a lot of inertia.  The President sets the tone and general direction.  The government still runs.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of elections and results, the French elections are upcoming, does anyone have thoughts about those? @NadaTeTurbe I would be especially interested to hear your thoughts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Amppax said:

Speaking of elections and results, the French elections are upcoming, does anyone have thoughts about those? @NadaTeTurbe I would be especially interested to hear your thoughts. 

Okay, here's something I wrote to a friend :

Well, there was the first election at the Republican primary (yes, the right party, previously called UMP, decided to change their name, and since the had no imagination, they choose the Republican), and it was full of surprise. Three big challengers : Sarkozy, ex president that everybody hate. Became mayor of one of the richest city in France at 27 years old, but somewhat think he's not part of the elite. Alain Juppé. Ex prime minister under very popular ex president Chirac. Centrist, moderate, and not agressive. Supposed to be the favorite. And then François Fillon, Sarkozy ex-prime minister. Wants to destroy everything that have been done in this country in the last 60 years. Likes Putin and Assad. Serious and competent. Doesn't have lot of charism. Well, it was supposed to be Juppé/Sarkozy at the second election in the primary (wich is the first primary held by the party), but it ended up with Fillon 44% (nobody saw that coming), Juppé 26% and Sarkozy 23%. 
Everybody was super happy that Sarkozy was out, and now, it seems like Fillon will win, except if a lot of centrist go to vote for Juppé. Juppé is more moderate than Fillon. Bot of them are serious, competent, and no clown, wich is quite relaxing.
It's very hard to say anything about the future, because currently, there's no strong leader in the left. Among the biggest players you have : 
- Hollande, our very unpopular socialist president, who destroyed family and worker's right. Had 3 terrorist attacks under his presidency and 4% of popular opinion. Still think he can make it. 
- M.Valls, his unpopular prime minister. 
- E.Macon, ex Hollande Minister. He's "not from the left, not from the right", but want to destroy worker's right more than Hollande. The only thing that most people remember about him is that he married his high school teacher. Will have 0,2% percent of the vote because in France, you can't do anything if you're "not from the left, not from the right"
- J-L Mélenchon. Far left. Had nearly 15% of the voices in 2012, credited with around 20%. He's insufferable, but speaks well to the poor working class and the middle class. I can't stand him, but he's honest. 
As long as we don't know who is going to lead the left and the right, you can't say anything about the future. Don't listen to journalist telling you that Marine Le Pen (far far far far far right) is the next president. This is a risk (and if this happen, thank God for dual nationaly, hello Catalunya for me), but two days ago, everybody predicted Juppé/Sarkozy. 
The biggest questions will be terrorism, identity and economy. Honestly, I don't know about refugees. Medias make a lot of noises about it, but France welcomed very little of them. My region have a big tradition of welcoming refugees, so I don't know what normal French people think about it. On a personal level, I think I know whom I'm going to vote for, and I think France need someone who can assemble people together, and who is very firm, with strong convictions. What I'm most worried about, is politician creating false division among french people, and attacking all religions in the name of fighting Islam. Marine Le Pen already said she will prohibit ANY religious signs in the streets, including islamic veil, jewish kippa, and catholic nun's veil. The separation of the Church and the State in France ("laïcité") is the current religion of most politicians. It's depressing. 
 

Amppax, LittleWaySoul and Luigi prop this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2016 at 11:16 AM, Anomaly said:

Soc,

Out of respect for dUSt, his site, others beliefs, and my beliefs of messy tolerance, I'm not going to argue with you about what atheism believes.  

Any defifinitions are relatively arbitrary and dependent upon the contextual understandings of society and cultures.  You can't point to a single divine utterance that unassailably defines and determines what exact nanosecond a Person becomes a Person. Catholic philosophers have struggled and evolved about that for centuries.  As has Aristotle and Socrates and many other philosophers.  

Peter Singer's utilitarianism is easily refuted because it is so narrow, asks for judgements based on narrow factors, and too easily dismisses long term effects of principles for short term goals of principles.   If utilitarianism is an act for the greater good of the greatest number, you also have to consider the effect on society beyond your short life span.   We are social creatures living a short life, but part of a society that proceeds and follows our life.   If we already move beyond acting as a sociopath, we see the value of ourselves and others.  Empathy.

You can call the person recognizing their individuality and a part of society Divine Natural Law.   Or, it can be called evolved genetic instinct and learned cultural behaviors.    I, like most people, can leave that definition to others and struggle to operate as a Person; a cognizant and tolerant individual responsible to my opinion of myself and as a cognizant and tolerant member of a larger society, tempered with both limited confidence and limited humility.

The right to life and who/what is a Person, IS on very shaky ground.  Humanity has struggled with that for eons.  Faith in Catholic Christianity alone is not the panacea for it all.   Rational, logical, philosophy and scientific thought is needed as well.  Catholic railing against Modernism is not against logic and pondering, but against philosophy and science without its God.

Fine.   We can disagree on a "Divine" regulator as defined by a few Religions in the recent couple millennium, but human society has been evolving and developing human wisdom and successful societies (mostly for good) much longer.  Christianity had its heyday and its theological philosophy aided society, but  Christianity Faith/Beliefs was/is not the sole source of morality, and is not without reason and logic.  Of course sane reason and logic philosophy often appears as Judea/Christianity.  And visa-versa.  

"Atheism" in itself does not believe anything, beyond that there is no God.

But whatever individual atheists may believe regarding "personhood," the right to life, or the morality of abortion, they must, in order to be consistent with their atheism, agree that no higher authority for these things exists than human beings.  These concepts would thus be subjective.

I believe it does in fact make a difference whether one subscribes to the orthodox Christian view that every human being is created in an act of love by God in His own image and likeness, and thus possesses infinite value, or whether human beings are simply accidental products of random, meaningless evolution.  In the latter case, human life has only the value which human beings choose to place on it.

If you want to try to defend the right to life for all human beings from conception on atheistic grounds, God bless you for your efforts.  I'm simply saying that a Christian worldview offers a much firmer foundation.

Peace props this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Socrates said:

  I'm simply saying that a Christian worldview offers a much firmer foundation.

Now that is a matter of subjective opinion.   Your personal understanding and personal practice may effectively make that true for you, but there is very little consistency in actual practice.  Catholicism itself has evolved in when and how abortion is understood, children born out of wedlock, other races and religions, etc.    You're welcome to the last word, because you need to respond to convince yourself and cannot concede a thing to another opinion.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2016 at 4:59 PM, NadaTeTurbe said:
On 11/21/2016 at 3:59 PM, Amppax said:

Speaking of elections and results, the French elections are upcoming, does anyone have thoughts about those? @NadaTeTurbe I would be especially interested to hear your thoughts. 

Okay, here's something I wrote to a friend :

Well, there was the first election at the Republican primary (yes, the right party, previously called UMP, decided to change their name, and since the had no imagination, they choose the Republican), and it was full of surprise. Three big challengers : Sarkozy, ex president that everybody hate. Became mayor of one of the richest city in France at 27 years old, but somewhat think he's not part of the elite. Alain Juppé. Ex prime minister under very popular ex president Chirac. Centrist, moderate, and not agressive. Supposed to be the favorite. And then François Fillon, Sarkozy ex-prime minister. Wants to destroy everything that have been done in this country in the last 60 years. Likes Putin and Assad. Serious and competent. Doesn't have lot of charism. Well, it was supposed to be Juppé/Sarkozy at the second election in the primary (wich is the first primary held by the party), but it ended up with Fillon 44% (nobody saw that coming), Juppé 26% and Sarkozy 23%. 
Everybody was super happy that Sarkozy was out, and now, it seems like Fillon will win, except if a lot of centrist go to vote for Juppé. Juppé is more moderate than Fillon. Bot of them are serious, competent, and no clown, wich is quite relaxing.
It's very hard to say anything about the future, because currently, there's no strong leader in the left. Among the biggest players you have : 
- Hollande, our very unpopular socialist president, who destroyed family and worker's right. Had 3 terrorist attacks under his presidency and 4% of popular opinion. Still think he can make it. 
- M.Valls, his unpopular prime minister. 
- E.Macon, ex Hollande Minister. He's "not from the left, not from the right", but want to destroy worker's right more than Hollande. The only thing that most people remember about him is that he married his high school teacher. Will have 0,2% percent of the vote because in France, you can't do anything if you're "not from the left, not from the right"
- J-L Mélenchon. Far left. Had nearly 15% of the voices in 2012, credited with around 20%. He's insufferable, but speaks well to the poor working class and the middle class. I can't stand him, but he's honest. 
As long as we don't know who is going to lead the left and the right, you can't say anything about the future. Don't listen to journalist telling you that Marine Le Pen (far far far far far right) is the next president. This is a risk (and if this happen, thank God for dual nationaly, hello Catalunya for me), but two days ago, everybody predicted Juppé/Sarkozy. 
The biggest questions will be terrorism, identity and economy. Honestly, I don't know about refugees. Medias make a lot of noises about it, but France welcomed very little of them. My region have a big tradition of welcoming refugees, so I don't know what normal French people think about it. On a personal level, I think I know whom I'm going to vote for, and I think France need someone who can assemble people together, and who is very firm, with strong convictions. What I'm most worried about, is politician creating false division among french people, and attacking all religions in the name of fighting Islam. Marine Le Pen already said she will prohibit ANY religious signs in the streets, including islamic veil, jewish kippa, and catholic nun's veil. The separation of the Church and the State in France ("laïcité") is the current religion of most politicians. It's depressing. 
 

 
 

Nada, what are your thoughts on this article: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/02/frances-catholic-moment ? 

Nihil Obstat props this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unfortunate how completely the formerly Catholic France has accepted aggressively secularist principles.

LittleWaySoul props this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mistaken post.

 

Edited by Nihil Obstat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Amppax said:

Nada, what are your thoughts on this article: https://www.firstthings.com/article/2017/02/frances-catholic-moment ? 

It's very well researched, I'm impressed. However, it miss some point about Fillon election (there was other factors contributing to him being chosen by the party, the whole "catholic voted for him" was much covered by the press) and the "recent" change in the catholic landscape. I'll answer more in depth later. 

Amppax props this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, I read it again. It was more nuanced that what I thought in my first reading, I just have some little comment, but otherwise, it's quite good. 

Is France experiencing what might be called its own Catholic moment?

The thing is, it have been twenty years (and more) that journalist are speaking about the Catholic moment. My parents read a leftist newspaper and every two years there's big front page about "le retour des cathos" (the return of the catholics). Social media have made it more visible, but it began at least two decade ago. 

spread of Muslim-dominated “no-go” areas for non-Muslims throughout France

I've NEVER heard of a no-go areas for non-Muslims. Never. The only time that I heard this term used, it was to insult our police by saying that they are too coward to go to some part of the city, wich, of course, is not the case. There are part of the city where live many immigrants, but there are also christian immigrants ! People from Sénégal (often catholic) and from Algeria live door-to-door. 

The paragraph about the FN is quite good. While perceived as "Catholic", its philosophy and principles are very secular. 

In practical terms, this “Catholicism of openness” meant flirting with notions such as Catholic-Marxist dialogue and adhering to positions conventionally described as “progressive” on matters ranging from liturgy to economics.

Yes and no. 
There was a global movement in the Catholic church in France to "hide" themselves. 
In the 30's, 40's, and 50's, this movement was spiritual. Some figures are René Voillaume, of the Little Brothers of Jesus, or the Workers Priest. It was heavily influenced by the Nazareth spirituality of Charles de Foucault : to live the hidden life of Jesus. People with this spirituality were not involved in politics. 
In the 60's, then came marxism, communism, feminism, etc... specially with May 1968. The Catholic Action was very influenced by marxism. Some worker priest became communist (some other not !). 
I think it's important to make a difference between the first people, who had a specific spirituality, and the second, who had political goals. 

The author briefly refer to Jean Daniélou. You cand read more about this cardinal, who opposed false interpretation of Vatican II and who died next to a prostitute that he helped : http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1350241?eng=y

Very good from the author to speak about Cardinal Lustiger. He was a very public figure (his full name is Jean Marie Aaron Lustiger, he's a convert from judaism), and he did a VERY good work in Paris seminaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now