Posted on 11/13/2007 1:40:53 PM PST by yoe
Why would the unborn rate a status higher than the born?
It is in the tradition of the Goebbels model of avoiding the point. A host of techniques are put into play: changing the subject (misdirecting one’s attention to some other issue, presumably one more comfortable for your opponent); ignoring the crucial question (hopefully by the aforementioned misdirection of one’s attention); and, shifting the burden (now you must explain or defend the newly introduced issue while the original proposition gets lost in the ensuing argument). And, we may expect a number of other exercises to follow as needed: the scrambling of meanings and terms, invoking the automatic disqualifier; positing a distinction possessing no difference; claiming inherited superiority; etc, etc, etc.
Have a wonderful Thanksgiving, YHAOS and js1138!
Praises to the Lord! Thanks be to the One who brings every good thing. And simply a wonderful Thanksgiving to you and Alamo-Girl, boop.
Amen!!!
In Christ's love and peace, dear YHAOS, in this Thanksgiving season.
Native Americans were counted as citizens of a hostile nation, or as citizens of a conquered nation. Nowadays they are U.S. citizens and also tribe-members. Not up on tribal law so I don’t know all the specifics.
And although I am against abortion, I think the Constitution says you have to be born to have rights. The Constitution mentions being born twice. Until you are born you have no rights and are dependent upon the resources of an American citizen in order to attain viability, and that citizen has been found to have the right (through emanations and penumbras)to deal with that issue involving a non citizen of the U.S.A.. I find it hard to disagree with a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court that finds any right left for us in the shambles this government has made of the Constitution, despite the penumbras; especially when it deals with the rights of U.S. citizens over those who are not.
To call Franklin a Deist is to take him at his word. He said as much in his autobiography. He may not fit your picture of what a Deist should be, but he fit his own. He was an avid proponent of spirituality and gave to the cause no matter the denomination (giving to the building of a synagogue once I believe). He greatly admired a preacher for his great oratories (saying so in his autobiography) and was disappointed when he found out that the sermons were plagiarized, there being no sin in saying another man’s words, only in claiming them for your own. Franklin was from a Christian family and lived in a mostly Christian culture, to deny that he was influenced by Christianity would be to deny that shipbuilding has not been influenced by steel-working.
Franklin said he was a “thorough Deist”. Not slightly, not mostly, but thoroughly. Take him at his word.
“But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns several points as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of the Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of the sermons which had been preached at Boyle’s Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them. For the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to be much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.” Franklin
http://www.usgennet.org/usa/topic/preservation/bios/franklin/chpt4.htm
Not my ‘picture’ (what’s your ‘picture’, by the way, and will your picture remain constant, or will you modify your picture to fit the changing profiles of the personalities you wish to identify as ‘Deist’?). In the meantime, my ‘picture’ is the picture held by a number of different personalities. For example:
The Compact Oxford English Dictionary of current English, third edition, 2005
Deism / noun / belief in the existence of an all-powerful creator who does not intervene in the universe. Compare with theism.
Or another:
Merriam’s Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 1953
Deism / n. / Belief in a personal God as creator of the world and final judge of men, but as remaining in the interval completely beyond the range of human experience. – Syn. See Atheist.
Webster’s Universal Dictionary of the English Language, 1937. An unabridged descendant of the original Webster’s.
deism / n / The doctrine or creed of a deist; usually, belief in the existence of a Supreme Being as the source of finite existence, to the exclusion of revelation and the supernatural doctrines of Christianity.
And, finally, a more thoroughgoing definition from the original Webster’s, and one closer to the time of Franklin himself:
American Dictionary Of The English Language, modern reproduction of Noah Webster’s original 1828 dictionary, fifteenth printing, May 2002
DEISM / n / The doctrine or creed of a deist; the belief or system of religious opinions of those who acknowledge the existence of one God, but deny revelation: or deism is the belief in natural religion only, or those truths in doctrine and practice, which man is to discover by the light of reason, independent and exclusive of any revelation from God. Hence deism implies infidelity or a disbelief in the divine origin of the scriptures.
It seems more than passing strange that whenever I get into one of these ‘definition wars’, it’s not long before the suggestion is put forward that I am insincere in my efforts, and that I am angling to give the meaning I ‘want’ to a word. Does that look like what I am doing? (I don’t, by the way, ascribe this accusation to you, except, perhaps, in its most gentle form.) I don’t know that either Franklin or I are entitled to our own understanding of the meaning of the term Deism, but I doubt that either one of us are.
What is, after all, the point in identifying Franklin, and others of the Founding Fathers, as a Deist, if it is not to deny that the Judeo-Christian faith had any influence on the founding of the Union? None that I know of. That is the point driving the discussions of this subject on all the atheist websites of which I am aware. You’ve already observed, on the other hand, that Christianity did have a profound influence on Franklin, so what is the point of our discussion other than a self-edifying one? That’s sufficient a reason for me. We’ve already gotten crosswise on this subject once, and I have no desire to repeat the experience. (The observation that Christianity has had a profound influence on America’s destiny, by the way, can get you into a lot of trouble with The Masters of the Universe. Their reaction will be similar to the reaction you get when you show a silver cross or a gilded mirror to a vampire. This is what impelled js1138 to accuse boop of a fabrication over Franklin’s speech at the convention. He couldn’t stand boop’s point to go unchallenged).
”To call Franklin a Deist is to take him at his word.”
Oh splendid! What’s the word? What was Franklin’s definition of ‘Deism’? And, did he ascribe that definition to himself? How did it compare to the definitions above?
Why not take the man at his word? He said he was a Deist. Why would you doubt his own statement about his own beliefs?
Non-responsive, Sir. You can misrepresent my objections all you want, it doesn’t change the fact that you are either unwilling or unable to define what Old Ben meant by “Deist,” and you seem equally unwilling to come to grips with the fact that without defining the meaning of “Deist” you then become free to change the meaning of the term at your discretion, as often as a mother changes diapers, while misrepresenting every switch as infallibly the very last word on the wisdom of Dr. Franklin himself. All done in the finest Liberal tradition of ignoring the crucial question and shifting the burden to a more comfortable subject.
I do not need to define the term in order to say that Franklin considered himself a Deist, said he was a Deist, and, according to himself, held a Deist philosophy. I am not free to Define what “Old Ben” meant by Deist, only that according to HIS definition, he was one.
Franklin said he was a thorough Deist. You may disagree with him about his own beliefs if you want, but you don't need me for that particular conversation, try a Ouija Board.
What is wrong with talking about all theories?
Uhhhhh....ok then.
Thank you for your kind words, but I’m not at all sure about the outstanding part.
The definitions I quoted were rather a diverse lot, but, taken together, I think they deliver a relatively clear understanding of what composes Deism, or a Deist. That understanding departs sufficiently enough from what appears to be Franklin’s understanding, that I feel justified in asking what was, in fact, Franklin’s meaning when he identified himself as a Deist.
The motive for demanding definitions and meaning, is to bring clarity of understanding to the conversation. The fierce resistance from allmendream to confronting Franklin’s meaning of the word ‘Deist’ was not motivated by a desire to bring clarity to the conversation. Oddly enough.
deism
1682 (deist is from 1621), from Fr. déisme, from L. deus "god" (see Zeus). Until c.1700, opposed to atheism, in a sense where we would now use theism (see theist).
The term "Deism" originally referred to a belief in one deity, as contrasted with the belief in no God (Atheism) and belief in many Gods (Polytheism). During the later 17th century, the meaning of "Deism" began to change. It referred to forms of radical Christianity - belief systems that rejected miracles, revelation, and the inerrancy of the Bible. Currently, Deism is generally no longer associated with Christianity or any other established religion. Then, as now, Deism is not a religious movement in the conventional sense of the world. There is no Deistic network of places of worship, a priesthood or hierarchy of authority.
Deism was greatly influential among politicians, scientists and philosophers during the later 17th century and 18 century, in England, France Germany and the United States.
Early Deism was a logical outgrowth of the great advances in astronomy, physics, and chemistry that had been made by Bacon, Copernicus, Galileo, etc. It was a small leap from rational study of nature to the application of the same techniques in religion. Early Deists believed that the Bible contained important truths, but they rejected the concept that it was divinely inspired or inerrant. They were leaders in the study of the Bible as a historical (rather than an inspired, revealed) document. Lord Herbert of Cherbury (d. 1648) was one of the earliest proponents of Deism in England. In his book "De Veritate," (1624), he described the "Five Articles" of English Deists:
Many of the leaders of the French and American revolutions followed this belief system. Among the U.S. founding fathers, John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison Thomas Paine, and George Washington were all Deists. Deists played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, and the religious freedom clauses of the First Amendment of the Constitution.
We have been unable to find estimates of the number of Deists in North America. Although both the U.S. and Canada census document religious affiliations, many Deists are listed under Freethinkers, Humanists, persons of no religion, Agnostics, etc. Many Deists who feel a need to join a spiritual community of searchers for truth become members of congregations associated with the Unitarian Universalist Association.
"As to Jesus of Nazareth, my opinion of whom you particularly desire, I think the system of Morals and his Religion, as he left them to us, the best the World ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupt changes, and I have, with most of the present Dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity; though it is a question I do not dogmatize upon, having never studied it, and think it needless to busy myself with it, when I expect soon an opportunity of knowing the Truth with less trouble. I see no harm, however, in its being believed, if that belief has the good consequence, as probably it has, of making his doctrines more respected and better observed; especially as I do not perceive that the Supreme takes it amiss, by distinguishing the unbelievers in His government of the world with any particular marks of His displeasure.
"I shall only add, respecting myself, that, having experienced the goodness of that Being in conducting me prosperously through a long life, I have no doubt of its continuance in the next, without the smallest conceit of meriting it... I confide that you will not expose me to criticism and censure by publishing any part of this communication to you. I have ever let others enjoy their religious sentiments, without reflecting on them for those that appeared to me unsupportable and even absurd. All sects here, and we have a great variety, have experienced my good will in assisting them with subscriptions for building their new places of worship; and, as I never opposed any of their doctrines, I hope to go out of the world in peace with them all."
[Benjamin Franklin, letter to Ezra Stiles, President of Yale, shortly before his death; from "Benjamin Franklin" by Carl Van Doren, the October, 1938 Viking Press edition pages 777-778 Also see Alice J. Hall, "Philosopher of Dissent: Benj. Franklin," National Geographic, Vol. 148, No. 1, July, 1975, p. 94]
This is an excellent example of the "tension" between natural law (the theory of law of the DoI and the Constitution) and positive legal theory. The nine black-robed justices of that time were mainly legal positivists. As mentioned earlier, the emphasis of natural law theory is always the human individual; positive law tends to focus on group "equities." (In Roe v. Wade, the contending "groups" involved are mothers as a class, and their unborn children as a class. What doesn't logically add up is the Court asserted the right to privacy as justification for its holding -- but privacy is something applicable only to individuals, not groups; and then it had to be found in a constitutional "penumbra." Needless to say, the entire Roe v. Wade decision is systematically illogical.)
In natural law, respecting the question of abortion, there are only two questions that need to be answered: Is the foetus human? Is it alive? All you need is two "yes" responses to make clear that a preborn alive human has an unalienable right to life and so is deserving of the protection of a just government. This conclusion is lawful according to the dictates of natural law theory, which is derived from JudeoChristian ethics. What the nine black-robed justices did was to turn something "unlawful" -- the termination of a live human -- into something "legal."
But God is not mocked.
Can’t remember if I pinged you to this previously. In case not, forewarned is forearmed.
You’ve just articulated with facile ease a tension on the legal front I have struggled to articulate for many years. So the tension - which seems to be rearing its ugly head even in the Republican Primary - is between natural law (what we know instinctively to be right) and... positive legal theory. Question: is the latter a synonym for common law? Even common law, expanding out to include many abortion cases rather than three exceptional ones Cyril Means used in SCOTUS testimony in 1973, condemned abortion going back to the 1300s.
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.