Pages

Friday, November 16, 2007

Great Scott, I think I've Got it!

I think I'm finally catching on. Seeing all these posts by the secularists and the liberals on war, torture, terrorism, and punishment, is putting things into focus for me. Let's see if I'm catching on:

On the one had, terrorists are not to be subjected to any form of "torture" and murderers are not to be given the death penalty. We're too sophisticated and enlighted for that kind of barbarism.

On the other hand, innocents like children in the womb and the elderly are to be put to death. The children by tortuous abortion methods, the elderly by "euthenasia" (the "good" death).

Have I got it?

We really are enlightened and sophisticated. Any rational and caring person can see that we are a society with our priorities straight. 1.5 million children murdered for the sake of convenience, who cares. A handful of terrorists who seek to put hundreds of thousands of Westerners in the grave getting waterboarded as an aggressive interrogation tactic, why that's a travisty of justice! I don't know what took me so long to figure it out. Anyway, bear with me, I'm slow that way. You guys were right, secularism and liberalism are really attractive.

26 comments:

  1. What is worse is that Robertson thinks it is ok to murder 1.5 million babies to make sure we are safe from terrorists.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If the government wants to torture terrorists, that's their business. They have their ministry, and the church has its ministry. They ought to both carry them out without interference from the other. The church has the ministry of grace, and the state the ministry of wrath. Paul makes no mention in Rom 13:4 where he calls the governor a minister of God of any even remote possibility that God would appoint a Christian to such a task. It is implicit in his statements that anyone who is in governmental authority is not a true Christian. In fact, he makes it explicit in the previous chapter when he says in Rom 12:19 "Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord." Give place to wrath--let the Lord handle it. Then he launches into chapter 13 showing that the Lord appoints non-Christian and pseudo-Christians to this ministry of wrath.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Have you got it? Not really, unless you think it's the CIA carrying out abortions and your local physician interrogating terrorists. Perhaps you should try to address them separately to avoid confusing yourself?

    p.s. It doesn't work as satire, either.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Merkur,

    I'm addressing the beliefs of secularists and liberals who hold the conjunction of the two. Try to pay attention.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "It is implicit in his statements that anyone who is in governmental authority is not a true Christian."

    You're amazing at getting everything wrong.

    Perhaps you'd like to explain why Paul attempted to evangelize government officials. Paul also said that it is good for a Christian to remain doing that which he was doing before getting saved. So it doesn't follow that the evangelized and converted government officials would have to leave their post to honor this "implicit statement." They would continue serving their state and serving Jesus. Remember, the possibility of paying taxes to the state and serving God was already established by Jesus himself.

    Way to rip Romans 12:19 out of context. You have proven yourself time and again an incompetent exegete.

    ReplyDelete
  6. People like Steve Hays are not much better. He seems to be against abortion and euthanasia on the home front, but internationally, he supports our foreign policy, which includes things like sanctions, wars, subsidizing dictators (look in SE Asia), et al.

    Now he may intend to *only* exterminate bad guys, but, unfortunately, in the real world, things are not so easy - collateral damage occurring from our policies (one example, try 500,000 or so dead children from sanctions just in Iraq).

    Well I guess it's better them than us.

    ReplyDelete
  7. To add to what Bernabe has said, this issue was recently discussed in another thread:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/moral-equivalence.html

    As I mentioned there, Jesus and the earliest leaders of Christianity referred to Christians in government and approved of the collecting of taxes, the government's use of the sword, etc. (Matthew 17:24-27, Luke 3:12-14, Acts 10:1-2, 16:27-36, Romans 13:1-7, etc.). If a passage like Romans 13 refers to functions of the government such as the use of the sword in a positive manner (see also Acts 25:11), then why are we to believe that it's wrong for a Christian to be involved in a government that carries out such approved functions? If one passage of scripture tells Christians not to take up the sword in a particular situation, while other passages refer to the appropriateness of the government’s use of the sword and refer approvingly to Christians in government, then Egomakarios’ proposed explanation doesn’t make sense. His argument fails to explain some of the relevant passages. Christians in government would be acting as extensions of the government. The government has appropriate functions that an individual Christian doesn’t have.

    ReplyDelete
  8. An anonymous poster writes:

    “Now he may intend to *only* exterminate bad guys, but, unfortunately, in the real world, things are not so easy - collateral damage occurring from our policies (one example, try 500,000 or so dead children from sanctions just in Iraq).”

    Where’s your argument that good shouldn’t be pursued if there are or might be some unintended bad results that accompany the good results? Is it your position that we shouldn’t have police, since people are sometimes wrongly arrested, police sometimes accidentally shoot one another, etc.? Should parents never have children, since negative things sometimes occur as a result of a birth (the child grows up to be a murderer, etc.)?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Jason,

    I think there are better ways to go about foreign policy than sanctions, wars, et al. Many of the problems that we are now attempting to solve have been the result of our previous interferences. This will eventually lead to bankruptcy whether the neocon's and democrats like it or not.

    You say, "Where’s your argument that good shouldn’t be pursued if there are or might be some unintended bad results that accompany the good results?"

    The murderous abortionists could make this same type of assertion. Nevertheless, good can be pursued through means that are not tyrannical. Those sanctions brought about much good, right? But, yeah, look at all that good we've brought about. Now we may bring about even more good by attacking Iran.

    You said, "Is it your position that we shouldn’t have police, since people are sometimes wrongly arrested, police sometimes accidentally shoot one another, etc.? Should parents never have children, since negative things sometimes occur as a result of a birth (the child grows up to be a murderer, etc.)?"

    No this isn't my position.

    It's not 'negative things that sometimes occur' that I object to. Pure and unadulterated straw.

    Is perpetual war for perpetual peace your position?

    ReplyDelete
  10. An anonymous poster said:

    “I think there are better ways to go about foreign policy than sanctions, wars, et al.”

    That’s another assertion without an accompanying argument. You entered this thread with negative references to warfare, collateral damage, etc. Now you’re adding qualifiers that you didn’t mention earlier. You now suggest that unintended negative results can be acceptable. You now tell us that you’re responding to “neocons and Democrats”. You object that I’m presenting “pure and unadulterated straw” when I ask you for clarification of your initial post that was so vague. If you weren’t so vague, people would have a better idea of where you’re coming from. If you only oppose some wars, the allowance of some collateral damage, etc., then you need to specify what it is you’re opposing and offer supporting arguments. It’s not my fault that you failed to include qualifications in your initial post that you want to include now. And even your revised arguments are overly vague, frequently relying on terms like “tyrannical” to do the heavy lifting that isn’t being done by absent arguments.

    You entered this thread criticizing Steve Hays. If you want to know why he views specific issues like the situation in Iraq and terrorism the way he does, then consult his many posts on such subjects in the archives. Interact with what he’s said rather than making such vague assertions without giving us much reason to agree with those assertions. I addressed your initial post because I thought you were making some claims about general principles that could be relatively easily and briefly addressed. If you now want to add qualifiers you didn’t include earlier, which would significantly change the implications of your initial post, then I don’t want to get into discussions with you about Iraq, Iran, “neocons and Democrats”, whether we’re headed for bankruptcy, etc. Those discussions would take more time and effort, and they’ve already been largely addressed in previous threads.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous,

    "People like Steve Hays are not much better. He seems to be against abortion and euthanasia on the home front, but internationally, he supports our foreign policy, which includes things like sanctions, wars, subsidizing dictators (look in SE Asia), et al. "

    I'm sure Steve thinks those things (aborting babies, killing the elderly - with the appropriate qualifications) are wrong to do there too.

    Also, I'd check up on the law of double effect. Steve's intention isn't that immoral things happen. It's that moral, right, and safe ends are accomplished. This may have some negative side effects, which may even occur no matter what.

    Unintended but forseen negative consequences of a specific action do not necessarily make that action immoral. *Intent* is critical.

    I'd say that trying to equate his position with killing for convenience isn't a good analogy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Jason said, "You now tell us that you’re responding to “neocons and Democrats”."

    I didn't say this. I said, "This will eventually lead to bankruptcy whether the neocon's and democrats like it or not." That is extra information that does not necessarily relate to my original post.

    Jason said, "You object that I’m presenting “pure and unadulterated straw” when I ask you for clarification of your initial post that was so vague."

    Actually you phrased your questions as objections.

    My point in posting is that I think it's hypocritical for Christians to promote life at home and not abroad. Some of you guys promote policies, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that have disastrous consequences on the populations of the affected countries. If you think it's ok to kill 500,000 or so children because we think it would be a good thing to rid the world of their dictator whom we supported in times past, then I have nothing else to say.


    Paul,

    You said, "Also, I'd check up on the law of double effect. Steve's intention isn't that immoral things happen. It's that moral, right, and safe ends are accomplished. This may have some negative side effects, which may even occur no matter what."

    Even though I happen to agree with your blog post, I would hardly doubt that this could not be said of those whom you criticize.

    You said, "Unintended but forseen negative consequences of a specific action do not necessarily make that action immoral. *Intent* is critical."

    Never said that it did *necessarily* make that action immoral.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous,

    Well, let's see them defend that thesis.

    Second, then your critique doesn't work. it seems the law of double effect removes your charge.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Paul,

    You said, "Second, then your critique doesn't work. it seems the law of double effect removes your charge."

    I don't think so since I think there are alternatives that would minimize the harm that is done by our current policies, not only to us, but also to those other nations.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm addressing the beliefs of secularists and liberals who hold the conjunction of the two.

    And I'm addressing the fact that you haven't got it, as you asked us to. You want to make a tenuous connection between four distinct issues that doesn't contribute anything to discussions about any of them, go ahead. For the record:

    - It's not about "terrorists" being tortured, it's about the principle of whether we should torture people. The ticking time bomb scenario - as has been pointed out repeatedly - also allows for the torture of innocents, since it's a utilitarian argument.

    - Euthanasia doesn't fit in here because the subject undergoes it voluntarily, whereas the other three are involuntary.

    - While all four procedures are legally determined, the first two are carried out directly by the government, while the second two are not. So the grounds of the debate are entirely different.

    I'm guessing that I'm one of those secular liberals that you despise so much, in any case.

    ReplyDelete
  16. An anonymous poster wrote:

    "I said, 'This will eventually lead to bankruptcy whether the neocon's and democrats like it or not.' That is extra information that does not necessarily relate to my original post."

    It "does not necessarily" relate to your original post? Does it or doesn't it? You would know whether it does, so why do you continue to be so vague? The "extra information" you're referring to came at the end of your first paragraph in your last post. If the previous sentences weren't meant to be addressing "neocons and Democrats", then why would you mention whether they would "like" the bankruptcy that some policies allegedly would lead to? Did you decide to give us some "extra information" that not only wasn't relevant to your original post, but also didn't have much relevance to the earlier sentences in the paragraph in which it appeared?

    You write:

    "Actually you phrased your questions as objections."

    In the sense that I would object to your position if you held the position I was asking about. But the fact that I would object to that position doesn't change the fact that I was asking you whether you held it. As I said before, your initial post was vague enough to warrant my questions.

    You write:

    "My point in posting is that I think it's hypocritical for Christians to promote life at home and not abroad."

    If you want people to believe that Steve Hays is involved in such an inconsistency, then you need to explain why. He's written at length on issues like the ones you've mentioned. Your initial post was far too vague to establish any inconsistency on Steve's part. And your posts since then haven't added much detail.

    You said:

    "Some of you guys promote policies, whether knowingly or unknowingly, that have disastrous consequences on the populations of the affected countries. If you think it's ok to kill 500,000 or so children because we think it would be a good thing to rid the world of their dictator whom we supported in times past, then I have nothing else to say."

    You would need to provide more of an argument for the government policies involved, the alleged connection between those policies and the deaths in question, etc. You would need to compare the benefits of the policies to the negative consequences, take other factors involved into account, etc. You're not giving us any documentation. I don't even know whether Steve has ever said that he approved of the policies you have in mind. As far as I remember, I had never commented on the subject before you brought it up.

    Your comments here don't give me the impression that you've studied the issue much. But you're willing to make vague accusations. You're willing to make unsubstantiated charges of tyranny, "killing children", hypocrisy, etc. Why would you not interact with Steve's previous explanations for why he holds the positions he holds regarding Iraqi policy and other such issues, yet expect us to interact with your vague assertions in this thread? Why should anybody want to have a discussion with you on issues like these if you're going to behave the way you have so far?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anonymous said:
    Paul,

    You said, "Second, then your critique doesn't work. it seems the law of double effect removes your charge."

    I don't think so since I think there are alternatives that would minimize the harm that is done by our current policies, not only to us, but also to those other nations.

    **********

    That's fine. You can debate that if you want. The point is that any charge of immorality on Steve's end, or charges of "sounding like the guys I addressed in the post" are now moot. The law of double effect removed that. You've made a disanalogous claim.

    And, do you live in a dream world? Terrorism isn't a nation. And they don't want "policies." They want to (at least overtly) to bend the knee to Allah...or else die by the sword.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "- While all four procedures are legally determined, the first two are carried out directly by the government, while the second two are not. So the grounds of the debate are entirely different."

    Merkur, that's goofy- the point at issue is, are secularists being hypocritical/inconsistent in applying their moral principles to different aspects of their life. All you've shown is that different aspects of life are ... different, which no one disputes. But you've handily shown that government officials do not perform abortions. Wow, you could be the next James White.

    ReplyDelete
  19. "- Euthanasia doesn't fit in here because the subject undergoes it voluntarily, whereas the other three are involuntary."

    Oh, and I suppose you're anti-abortion then? That would mean you agree with Paul's main point.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Merkur, that's goofy- the point at issue is, are secularists being hypocritical/inconsistent in applying their moral principles to different aspects of their life.

    So one must apply moral principles in exactly the same way in different aspects of one's life? That's just super - let's forget that they're different aspects, shall we? One size fits all!

    The problem is that if the "secularists" - an odd term, since one may be both religious and a secularist - are inconsistent, then so are you. However I doubt you understand that, and it's probably not going to be a fruitful line of discussion.

    Oh, and I suppose you're anti-abortion then? That would mean you agree with Paul's main point

    Yes, I'm anti-abortion in the sense that I think it's a terrible thing to undergo and I want it to be a last resort rather than a first stop. But I'm guessing that's not what you meant, and no, I'm not anti-abortion in the sense that you mean.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Paul,

    You said, "That's fine. You can debate that if you want. The point is that any charge of immorality on Steve's end, or charges of "sounding like the guys I addressed in the post" are now moot. The law of double effect removed that. You've made a disanalogous claim."

    Actually, I don't recall saying what was quoted by you in any of my posts. This creates a misrepresentation since I was merely pointing out an inconsistency with guys in your own cliche. My comparison with the ones you criticize in your blog post is in light of a possible defense for their positions. So your charge that my claim is disanalogous is irrelevant.

    Actually, you've not shown how the law of double effect removes any charge. Only if Steve's way is the way that causes minimal harm could I see the law of double effect accomplishing that. So for you to claim victory is a tab bit premature.


    You said, "And, do you live in a dream world? Terrorism isn't a nation. And they don't want "policies." They want to (at least overtly) to bend the knee to Allah...or else die by the sword."

    Actually, I do live in the real world. I've known you for a while and know that you're an intelligent fellow. But I'm not naive to the threat of terrorism and Islam. Unfortunately, I think some of you guys have failed to understand the very nature of terrorism and are causing more harm than anything else. I recommend you read Imperial Hubris by Michael Scheurer, the head of the Bin Laden unit in the CIA for years (just one book among many).

    Regards



    Jason,

    If you are not going to attempt to understand, then I have no reason to respond to you. If I had not read Steve's posts in the past, then I would not post what I have posted.

    If you fail to see how sanctions do not cause poverty and death to populations at large, then I recommend you do a basic study in economics, a subject some on this board seem to be quite ignorant of.

    Ciao

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anonymous,

    I responded to this claim,

    "People like Steve Hays are not much better. He seems to be against abortion and euthanasia on the home front, but internationally, he supports our foreign policy, which includes things like sanctions, wars, subsidizing dictators (look in SE Asia), et al. "

    "Better" and what not are *moral* terms.

    Then there's the question if Steve's position is as you say. Do you have doccumentation?

    Third, I don't see how you've drawn a relevant analogy. See (4)

    Fourth, "people" not "being much better" gets into virture ethics. Intent is key, there. I'd say the intent on Steve's end and on the baby and elderly murderer end are completely different.

    So, disanalogy is relevant. That, or you're not using your terms properly.

    You mentioned alternatives. What would those be? Isolationism? Islamo-facism hates *the idea* of Westernism.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Paul,

    This will be my last post. I didn't really follow your reply nor do I see how it reinforces your points, so I'm not sure how to respond.

    Steve, although not just him, is for the status quo which includes the list that I gave in my first post - a cursory glance at past blog entries will reveal this. Since sanctions are one part of our foreign policy, and they rarely bring about the desired effect and end up causing more harm to those who are poor and outside of the government coffers rather than the political elite, it follows that this policy does not minimize the harm done. But sanctions are merely one aspect of this policy.

    You said, "You mentioned alternatives. What would those be? Isolationism? Islamo-facism hates *the idea* of Westernism."

    Isolationism is a caricature of the military noninterventionism that I hold to. Unfortunately, it's people who hold to military and economic (sanctions, 'pegging' the value of the dollar, IMF, World Bank)interventionism who are the true isolationists due to the alienation tendencies these policies have. The alternative is to have 'free trade with all, no entangling alliances, no fighting in foreign wars', build up military defenses at home, and protect the border (maybe this will also help ease the escalating desertion rate in the Army). Have people want to emulate us as they once did. Get rid of bad policies that create bad situations and lay the blame for these policies and the situations created where it belongs - politicians attempting to make a name for themselves, not on other nations. For an economic example that's been in the news lately, China being blamed for unfair trade practices when it's overregulation at home that drive manufacturing businesses away. The deficit trade balance that is constantly referred to, but the other side of the equation not being mentioned (capital inflows). Fortunately for us, China has purchased hundreds of billions in U.S. Treasuries keeping the value of the dollar high compared to the yuan. This helps Chinese exports but also protects U.S. consumers from higher inflation due to the 'inflation tax' of our current monetary policy. Economists speak of the financial nuclear bomb that China holds over the U.S. if they dumped our dollars - thanks mostly to our fiat currency.

    Second, Islamo-fascists hate American-fascists due to our occupation of their land - Robert Pape has documented all suicide terrorist attacks since 1980 (not just Muslim) and finds foreign occupation to be the primary motivation in 'Dying to Win'. This is stated again and again by Bin Laden and others. He has consistently been true to his word so I see no significant reason to doubt this. This is the reason that they attack us, not because they hate "the *idea* of Westernism", even if true. In Pew Trust polls in 2003, Muslims stated that they were not against American values but against American policies.

    Khomeini tried to appeal to your stated motive and it brought about one significant attack, the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in 1983, by Hizbollah, who used his rhetoric as a cover to prevent long-term U.S. presence in Lebanon.

    Now you may quote to me Bernard Lewis and others who agree that Muslims hate us for our 'westernism', but the problem is being able to actually link their "*hatred* of Westernism" with their actual attacks. And, in the book that I referenced, Mr. Scheurer makes the case that the jihad now being fought against us is a defensive jihad due to the lack of a caliphate. Scheurer gives other suggestions in his book, which I highly recommend.

    Apologies for any clarity issues, it's late and I'm exhausted.

    Regards.

    ReplyDelete
  24. An anonymous poster wrote:

    "If I had not read Steve's posts in the past, then I would not post what I have posted."

    I didn't just suggest that you should read his posts. I said that you should interact with them. You entered this thread with vague assertions that should have been documented, but weren't and still haven't been.

    You now tell us:

    "Steve, although not just him, is for the status quo which includes the list that I gave in my first post - a cursory glance at past blog entries will reveal this."

    Where did Steve say that he's "for the status quo which includes the list that I gave in my first post"? I've given his posts more than "a cursory glance", and your conclusion hasn't been "revealed" to me. I don't know what Steve's position is on some of the issues you've raised. He has addressed some of what you've mentioned, but I would want documentation for your assessment of what he believes.

    You've gone on to make a lot of other assertions, and have mentioned some books in the process, but, as I said before, your behavior in this thread doesn't give us much reason to trust your judgment. Are you reading such books in the same manner in which you've read Steve's posts?

    You write:

    "If you fail to see how sanctions do not cause poverty and death to populations at large, then I recommend you do a basic study in economics, a subject some on this board seem to be quite ignorant of."

    You aren't interacting with what I said about sanctions. Instead, you're responding to words you've put in my mouth, much as you've done with Steve.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Jason,

    Much to your chagrin, I have interacted with Steve in times past.

    Jason said, "Where did Steve say that he's "for the status quo which includes the list that I gave in my first post"? I've given his posts more than "a cursory glance", and your conclusion hasn't been "revealed" to me. I don't know what Steve's position is on some of the issues you've raised. He has addressed some of what you've mentioned, but I would want documentation for your assessment of what he believes."

    First, support for Mike Huckabee as president is supporting the same 'type' of foreign policy as we've had (ie., using the same methods even though Huckabee uses stronger rhetoric). Read Mike on the issues. There was a blog post on this a month or so ago.


    Jason said, "You aren't interacting with what I said about sanctions. Instead, you're responding to words you've put in my mouth, much as you've done with Steve."

    Earlier you said, "**You would need to provide more of an argument for the government policies involved, the alleged connection between those policies and the deaths in question, etc. You would need to compare the benefits of the policies to the negative consequences, take other factors involved into account, etc.** You're not giving us any documentation... "

    To which I responded, "If you fail to see how sanctions do not cause poverty and death to populations at large, then I recommend you do a *basic study* in economics, a subject some on this board seem to be quite ignorant of." Do a search for Madeleine Albright and her comments on the sanctions if you want documentation to what I'm referring to. Steve says that the sanctions were the U.N.'s, but, unfortunately, the U.S. was in support, enforced, and hence complicit in those policies.

    ReplyDelete
  26. An anonymous poster said:

    "Much to your chagrin, I have interacted with Steve in times past."

    How could anybody know, if you keep posting anonymously? We would need to know what interactions you have in mind in order to judge how relevant they are.

    I criticized you for how you entered this thread. Nothing you've said has justified that initial post. You made vague claims about Steve that you repeatedly failed to document, claims that Steve has since responded to:

    http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2007/11/holy-guacamole-batman.html

    You write:

    "First, support for Mike Huckabee as president is supporting the same 'type' of foreign policy as we've had (ie., using the same methods even though Huckabee uses stronger rhetoric)."

    That's an assertion, not an argument. And Steve can support Huckabee for President without agreeing with him on every issue. If a person chooses a candidate partially because of electability, then he might disagree with that candidate on some issues, even many.

    You write:

    "Do a search for Madeleine Albright and her comments on the sanctions if you want documentation to what I'm referring to. Steve says that the sanctions were the U.N.'s, but, unfortunately, the U.S. was in support, enforced, and hence complicit in those policies."

    Should I tell you to "do a search" for the writings of advocates of sanctions? I'm not advocating the sanctions in question, and neither is Steve, as he's explained to you in the post linked above. But if you're going to argue against those who support such sanctions, you need to do a lot more than what you've done so far in this discussion.

    ReplyDelete