Posted on 02/17/2007 2:36:34 PM PST by wagglebee
And this is the world that many want to return to.
Pro-Life Ping
Ping
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
RE: Professor Peter Singer, Hypocrite
http://www.nationalreview.com/interrogatory/schweizer200510250827.asp
October 25, 2005, 8:27 a.m.
Moore Hypocrites Than True Believers?
Exposing the Do As I Say (Not As I Do) Left.
Q&A by Kathryn Jean Lopez
The mother of Princeton bioethics professor Peter Singer is lucky that
her son is an hypocrite. Her son is a leading proponent of excising the
undesirable — the imperfect via abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.
The disabled would fall under there, also, sometimes, the elderly.
Peter Singer's mother has Alzheimer's.
Peter Schweizer reports in his new book Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles
in Liberal Hypocrisy that "far from embracing his own moral ethic, Singer
hired a group of health care workers to look after her."
BTTT
How could any rational person like this article? To show why atheists are “bad people” he takes who is probably the most radical moral relativist out there as an example. Singer isn’t even known for being an atheist, his claim to fame is that he believes animals have rights.
This is just like saying OJ killed his ex so all black people must be killers. As for as I can see, there is one reason for this article, these people want to pick a fight. They’re saying you’re either religious or a liberal tree-hugging commie. Well I don’t like religion or commies and if the left comes to my house to take away my guns, their going to get shot and if the right comes to take away my drugs, their going to get shot too.
Publish all the lies you like…hell even be the sucker that falls for them and makes you think people like me are cause of all this nations problems. Just leave me the hell alone and like John Galt said, “Get the hell out of my way!”
Ronald Reagan's appeal emanated from his religious faith and love of humankind.
And this is the world that many want to return to.
When did the law ever consider Human beings not having any inherent value?
It's enough to make you cry.
There is a great irony in trying to develop ethics in the absence of religion, in that objectively, it seems that many ethical systems that can be devised, that people need, have already have reached their apex in religion.
Take marriage for example. In the absence of religion it seems to be a contrived and unnatural relationship. So in its place, the first inclination outside of religion is to revert to the basic biological prerogatives of male and female animals--to have sexual relationships like they are done in the animal kingdom.
However, it quickly becomes evident that while this is a basic system to insure reproduction, it is far from optimal for males, females, or their offspring.
So, still in the absence of religion, government has to intervene to *duplicate* the advantages of marriage in the law. And after many years, it still hasn't succeeded.
But there are so many aspects to human nature that for thousands of years have been examined in religion, seeking the better character, the definition of our humanity, it is foolish indeed to chuck it all in an effort to find everything out, all over again, but in the absence of God.
1. Who said I liked the article? I didn't. 2. Why would you contend rationality with someone named BipolarBob? However anyone who denies the existence of God is irrational. I am in awe of Him and worship Him. 3. God has expectations of all of us (even those who don't believe in Him) to be grateful for what He has given us. You can choose to be grateful or not.
"When did the law ever consider Human beings not having any inherent value?"
Are you serious? Try the laws and policies of National Socialist Germany, the Soviet Union & its empire, pagan Rome, much of today's non-Christian world, etc.
In the 1800s it was US policy to exterminate the Native American.
"Every generation has a few atheists who seem eager to tell the world how much smarter they are than everybody else. "
I'm sure the Zoroastrians said the same thing about those icky people who believed in Gog and Magog. Enlightened people know the giant flying spaghetti monster is the only true deity.
We use reason and logic to define what is rational. By nature, God can only be defined using faith, which does not use reason and logic.
I don't deny the existence of God, that assumes something exists and I'm behaving irrationally to ignore it. Using reason we can all find out there is nothing to deny in the first place.
but today many Americans are so influenced by relativism that they find it difficult to respond.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
But today so many Americans have been so thoroughly indoctrinated by their government schools that they find it difficult to respond.
BTT
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
