[Timo]

You don't like relgion and politics and liberal bias threads? Don't read it.

God, Satan and the Media
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF



Claims that the news media form a vast liberal conspiracy strike me as utterly unconvincing, but there's one area where accusations of institutional bias have merit: nearly all of us in the news business are completely out of touch with a group that includes 46 percent of Americans.

That's the proportion who described themselves in a Gallup poll in December as evangelical or born-again Christians. Evangelicals have moved from the fringe to the mainstream, and that is particularly evident in this administration. It's impossible to understand President Bush without acknowledging the centrality of his faith. Indeed, there may be an element of messianic vision in the plan to invade Iraq and "remake" the Middle East.

Robert Fogel of the University of Chicago argues that America is now experiencing a fourth Great Awakening, like the religious revivals that have periodically swept America in the last 300 years. Yet offhand, I can't think of a single evangelical working for a major news organization.

Evangelicals are increasingly important in every aspect of American culture. Among the best-selling books in America are Tim LaHaye's Christian "left behind" series about the apocalypse; about 50 million copies have been sold. One of America's most prominent television personalities is Benny Hinn, watched in 190 countries, but few of us have heard of him because he is an evangelist.

President Bush has said that he doesn't believe in evolution (he thinks the jury is still out). President Ronald Reagan felt the same way, and such views are typically American. A new Gallup poll shows that 48 percent of Americans believe in creationism, and only 28 percent in evolution (most of the rest aren't sure or lean toward creationism). According to recent Gallup Tuesday briefings, Americans are more than twice as likely to believe in the devil (68 percent) as in evolution.

In its approach to evangelicals, the national news media are generally reflective of the educated elite, particularly in the Northeast. It's expected at New York dinner parties to link crime to deprived childhoods ? conversation would stop abruptly if someone mentioned Satan.

I tend to disagree with evangelicals on almost everything, and I see no problem with aggressively pointing out the dismal consequences of this increasing religious influence. For example, evangelicals' discomfort with condoms and sex education has led the administration to policies that are likely to lead to more people dying of AIDS at home and abroad, not to mention more pregnancies and abortions.

But liberal critiques sometimes seem not just filled with outrage at evangelical-backed policies, which is fair, but also to have a sneering tone about conservative Christianity itself. Such mockery of religious faith is inexcusable. And liberals sometimes show more intellectual curiosity about the religion of Afghanistan than that of Alabama, and more interest in reading the Upanishads than in reading the Book of Revelation.

I care about this issue partly because I grew up near Yamhill, Ore., which has 790 people and five churches. My science teacher at Yamhill Grade School taught that evolution was false, and a high school girlfriend attended a church where people spoke in tongues (contrary to stereotypes, she was an ace student, smarter than many people fluent in more conventional tongues, like French and Spanish). In the evangelical tinge to its faith, Yamhill is emblematic of a huge chunk of Middle America that we in the Northeast are out of tune with.

Moreover, it is increasingly not just Middle America, but Middle World. As Professor Philip Jenkins notes in a new book, fundamentalist Christianity is racing through the developing world. The number of African Christians has soared over the last century, to 360 million from 10 million, and the boom is not among tweedy Presbyterians but among charismatic Pentecostalists.

One of the deepest divides in America today is the gulf of mutual suspicion that separates evangelicals from secular society, and policy battles over abortion and judicial appointments will aggravate these tensions further in coming months. Both sides need to reach out, drop the contempt and display some of the inclusive wisdom of Einstein, who wrote in his memoir: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Well, at least this is something to keep Zimphire busy.

[boots]

Thought provoking. Also kind of scary in terms of trends. I was shocked when someone (TF or BG, I think) posted that gallup poll.

The education-level breakdown was more telling, though. I forget the numbers, but it pretty much reversed to 60ish% evolution 25ish% creation.

I do lament the fact that most of the civil discussions we've tried to have here have been hijacked by three or four people.

I think Superchi[c]kin, Benb, Roger_Ramjet, Lerk, Zig-zag, and a few others have set pretty good examples of how the discussion can be open without condescension. I'll talk with them any day of the week. But that is just my opinion. I could be going to hell in the smoking car.

[imaxxedout]

I think I'd like to start a country where religon is excluded, illegal, and not allowed at all. I betcha it'd be a lot more fair than the USA, and run infinitely better.

Oh well.

- Ca$h

[benb]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I think I'd like to start a country where religon is excluded, illegal, and not allowed at all. I betcha it'd be a lot more fair than the USA, and run infinitely better.

Oh well.

- Ca$h

Some of the areas where the Gospel is being spread the fastest and is the most welcomed is in the former Soviet States. That alone is very telling.

[boots]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I think I'd like to start a country where religon is excluded, illegal, and not allowed at all. I betcha it'd be a lot more fair than the USA, and run infinitely better.

Oh well.

- Ca$h

Soviet Union tried it. Didn't work. Religion went undergound. Like it or not it is part of the collective human experience. Given that reality, the best we can do is try to understand each other. Throwing insults back and forth is less than productive.

[pathogen]

I bet its not common knowledge that Bush doesn't believe in evolution. I didn't know that.

More people are aware he doesn't believe in global warming.

You want to take this president down, follow the no-evolution POV of this president to it's core. Personally, I think that this has been glossed over in his bios, and it would show him to be quite an antagonist to the larger scientific community (science and tech industries practically own the USA).

[benb]

Originally posted by boots:
Soviet Union tried it. Didn't work. Religion went undergound. Like it or not it is part of the collective human experience. Given that reality, the best we can do is try to understand each other. Throwing insults back and forth is less than productive.

Great minds think alike. Well, for the most part anyway...

[thunderous_funker]

Great article. I've often commented on the powerful influence of Evangelical Christianity in political debates which, of course, got the flamefest going. I think it very very important.

Remember El Pre$sidente/Kelly Hogan? That was his whole thing. Of course, coming from him it was always some "crazy conspiracy theory".

On one hand, the need for mutual understanding and finding a way of communicating with tolerance is very very needed and I appreciate the author's comments on that regard. Liberals are way too dismissive when they should be engaging.

On the other hand, I'm not sure it can really be reconciled. These world views are quite mutually exclusive once they get into politics. The American experiment in seperation of church/state is not doing so well these days, IMO. Bush might be a real high-water mark for a modern president in terms of mixing the two. Perhaps the greatest mistake of the Left is to underestimate just how sincere Bush is when it comes these matters. Like many other during the election, I thought it was mostly for show (like most "religious" politicians). We were wrong. He obviously has a very very very deeply rooted conviction that he's engaged in doing "the Lord's work" and he sees the intersection of Divine and National interests. I honestly think he believes that very sincerely.

If he were my neighbor, I wouldn't care too much. As president, it's really starting to scare the bejebus out of me.

In one of the religious flamefests, I posted a long peice about Religion as the ultimate conversation stopper and why there must be a private/public split to protect both individual religious freedom and secular democracy. I really believe that to be the case.

I'm starting to doubt, however, that enough of my fellow Americans feel this way to make it work here.

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by boots:
Soviet Union tried it. Didn't work. Religion went undergound. Like it or not it is part of the collective human experience. Given that reality, the best we can do is try to understand each other. Throwing insults back and forth is less than productive.

No, you don't understand. They tried to CONVERT people into a non religous country, and they basically replaced 'religon' with 'patriotism'.

I'm talking about a small country where you submit an application, and you understand htat religon is illegal there. Therefore, everyone in the country would be non religous by CHOICE. They would have CHOSEN to live in that country, without 'god'.

I'd go.

- Ca$h

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by benb:
Some of the areas where the Gospel is being spread the fastest and is the most welcomed is in the former Soviet States. That alone is very telling.

Uneducated underprivlidged people accepting Christianity? NO WAY! >cough< Southern US >cough<

- Ca$h

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Uneducated underprivlidged people accepting Christianity? NO WAY! >cough< Southern US >cough<

- Ca$h

Actually some of the brightest minds of our time believed in God. But thinks for that extra silliness.

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
On the other hand, I'm not sure it can really be reconciled. These world views are quite mutually exclusive once they get into politics. The American experiment in seperation of church/state is not doing so well these days, IMO.

Yes, there is the problem of mutual exclusivity here. But that doesn't mean dialogue should stop. Respectful disagreement does not mean it is impossible to co-exist. It just makes it really difficult. All the more reason to push the discussion closer to center stage.

I think the discussion Ben and I had in another thread is a pretty solid example. We disagree on a lot, but we understand each other better and are more inclined to listen when the other speaks because of it.

In one of the religious flamefests, I posted a long peice about Religion as the ultimate conversation stopper and why there must be a private/public split to protect both individual religious freedom and secular democracy. I really believe that to be the case.

I'm starting to doubt, however, that enough of my fellow Americans feel this way to make it work here.

I think part of the problem is that religion and politics are somewhat over-lapping spheres of influence. In that light, I'm not sure how you deal with it. I agree, it would be nice. But if one person thinks abortion, as a passion invoking example, is really murder, it falls under the governments responsibility to protect its citizens. If you don't believe that abortion is murder, then it is invasion of privacy. You don't have to be religious to be on either side, but the conservative christian world view definately influences the possition taken. Now it is political AND religious. How do you separate that kind of overlap? I certainly can't. (And this was not intended to provide a hijack opportunity...it was just an example and I am not trying to debate that example.)

[benb]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I'm talking about a small country where you submit an application, and you understand htat religon is illegal there. Therefore, everyone in the country would be non religous by CHOICE. They would have CHOSEN to live in that country, without 'god'.

I'd go.

- Ca$h

And then, according to your first post, this would be more fair? Apparantly you have never taken a statistics class, my friend. There is a reason we have double-blind tests, to account for the bias of the experimenter. Which is exactly what you are adding here, your bias.

[boots]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
No, you don't understand. They tried to CONVERT people into a non religous country, and they basically replaced 'religon' with 'patriotism'.

I'm talking about a small country where you submit an application, and you understand htat religon is illegal there. Therefore, everyone in the country would be non religous by CHOICE. They would have CHOSEN to live in that country, without 'god'.

I'd go.

- Ca$h

Ok. Gotcha. It would be an interesting experiment. Lets go with that for a minute.

What happens when someone who was an established citizen "converts." Is that person exhiled?

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Actually some of the brightest minds of our time believed in God. But thinks for that extra silliness.

Franklin didn't. And some of the brightest minds of our times also 'claimed' to believe in God just so the christians wouldn't attack them for their differing beliefs. Kinda like how you feel on these forums. Because you claim to be christian, people think of you as an idiot, and don't listen to you as well. I've heard of more than one 'great mind' admitting on their death bed they never believed in all that crap.

- Ca$h

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Actually some of the brightest minds of our time believed in God. But thinks for that extra silliness.

The same people also killed you if you said the earth rotated around the sun.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
The same people also killed you if you said the earth rotated around the sun.

The same people? really? I guess since there are homosexuals out there that have raped unwilling men, that all homosexuals are rapists then eh?

Don't let the actions of a few represent the actions of a whole.

[benb]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
Uneducated underprivlidged people accepting Christianity? NO WAY! >cough< Southern US >cough<

- Ca$h

No, people deprived of any religion accepting it. You can bet that there also is an influx of Islam in some areas, like Pakistan, but it is no where as widly embraced or accepted as the Gospel is. That again, is very telling. And maybe I just never heard these things, but I never heard anything about brave Soviet Muslims, Buddhists, or what-not risking thier lives by going to underground meetings with others of the same religion. Correct me if you have heard or know otherwise.

And to say that only uneducated, underprivlidged people accepting Christianity is very false, and rude. It is true that there are less, but that cannot be attributed to one factor. There are many factors that could contribute to why more "intelligent" people don't believe, but that are directly related to intelligence and education levels. Say for instance, income.

And I am not Southern, but please, there is no need to call them uneducated, or underprivlidged. That comment just makes one realize that they might be able to teach you a few things.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
Ok. Gotcha. It would be an interesting experiment. Lets go with that for a minute.

What happens when someone who was an established citizen "converts." Is that person exhiled?

such is the problem of all Utopia attempts. even if you get a core group of people that, at that particular point in time, believe exactly the same way....later, either those same people or their descendants will change their minds. Human nature.

The urge to have one country where all think alike is the dream of the insecure. To want a country where all types of thinking are celebrated and encouraged is the dream of the secure. Martin Luther King was a secure dreamer. Pol Pot was not.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
The same people also killed you if you said the earth rotated around the sun.

you missed the part "of our time" I think.
You're referring to centuries ago.

[davesimondotcom]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
The American experiment in seperation of church/state is not doing so well these days, IMO. Bush might be a real high-water mark for a modern president in terms of mixing the two.

Is there some sort of proposal I'm unaware of where Bush is considering instituting a state religion?

Sure, he's got the "faith based" stuff, none of which says that only one religion can get money.

The ACLU and other forces have done their best to change what is really meant by certain things.

First, the "separation of church and state" does not mean that nobody can mention God or read a Bible quote in a government activity. It simply means that, unlike England, Italy and others, the United States will not have a certain state sponsored Religion.

Second, "freedom of speech" was not provided so anyone can say anything. It was intended to prevent the government taking action against people who spoke out against the government. To allow dissent.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
you missed the part "of our time" I think.
You're referring to centuries ago.

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by davesimondotcom:
Sure, he's got the "faith based" stuff, none of which says that only one religion can get money.

no offense, but you're being a bit naive there. The whole concept of "faith-based initiatives" are inherently in opposition of the concept of separation of church and state, regardless of which or how many churches are involved.

And, how are you going to effectively administer aid, if you distribute monies to every single denomination in a given area? Unless they work together and pool their operations, that means you have just multiplied the administrative overhead and staff for distribution of aid by as many denominations as are in your area.
that's hardly efficient, in fact, its counter-productive. that will seriously deplete the amount that is actually available.

think about it: the govt. no longer has to spend money on administrative overhead theoretically, but has pushed that cost directly onto the churches. The churches will receive x dollars, of which y must be deducted for overhead (storage, distribution, etc.) . So its a cost drain that drastically reduces overall benefit for the community.

And, what if the aid is in direct conflict of the given church's viewpoint? For example, perhaps an existing govt. program would be handing out free condoms to grade school students to stem STD transmission. Would a Catholic Church continue to support that program if put in charge of it? If they did not, what would happen to that program? Who gets to decide which programs will be handled by which church? Do the churches get any financial remuneration in return for handling the program? if not, why would they?

I'm afraid its simply another way to shovel off social responsibility, and cloak it in "faith" to cover up its true intent.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.

Point being, said comment wasn't in context with comment you was responding to. It was just a knee-jerk defense mechanism you seem to be known for.

[Socially Awkward Solo]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Point being, said comment wasn't in context with comment you was responding to. It was just a knee-jerk defense mechanism you seem to be known for.

Now knee-jerk and post one of me

[miykael]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
such is the problem of all Utopia attempts. even if you get a core group of people that, at that particular point in time, believe exactly the same way....later, either those same people or their descendants will change their minds. Human nature.

The urge to have one country where all think alike is the dream of the insecure. To want a country where all types of thinking are celebrated and encouraged is the dream of the secure. Martin Luther King was a secure dreamer. Pol Pot was not.

Amen to that. =)

Thanks,

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.

so...you're saying the catholic church is going to start executing people again who say the earth rotates around the sun?

btw, the Egyptians used to bury architects of the pyramids in the structure. So we should keep an eye on those egyptians, in case they do it again.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by boots:
I think part of the problem is that religion and politics are somewhat over-lapping spheres of influence. In that light, I'm not sure how you deal with it. I agree, it would be nice. But if one person thinks abortion, as a passion invoking example, is really murder, it falls under the governments responsibility to protect its citizens. If you don't believe that abortion is murder, then it is invasion of privacy. You don't have to be religious to be on either side, but the conservative christian world view definately influences the possition taken. Now it is political AND religious. How do you separate that kind of overlap? I certainly can't. (And this was not intended to provide a hijack opportunity...it was just an example and I am not trying to debate that example.)

First of all, I think it starts with what we consider to be the role of government and society and individual liberty.

The American experiment (founded on the radical ideas of Classical Liberalism) is based on the idea that government only exists to protect individual Liberty. Any constraint on Liberty must be vigorously challenged and carefully justified by a clear common interest. In instances where we cannot agree on a common interest, it must default to Liberty.

So when you start the public debate on an issue like abortion, the burden of proof is on the side of those that would curtail Liberty. They must show a compelling common interest to justify the constraint.

As I see, the moral questions involved are deeply rooted in personal contexts. There is no common context (as yet) to clearly indicate the morality of the situation. It essentially boils down to a question of "what is life" and "what makes a person a person". I have yet to see this argued successfully for either side in such a way to make a compelling case to suggest that we curtail Liberty. Both sides simply don't agree on these questions, therefore, the government's role is keep out of it and allow individuals to exercise their Liberty.

<----DISCLAIMER------>
The above is simply an example of how the proposed process should work in regards to issues of deeply personal belief. It's merely a demonstration of secular democracy at work protecting Liberty and allowing both personal religious freedom and Liberty to peacefully coexist.

I AM NOT STARTING THE ABORTION DEBATE.

[Timo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
btw, the Egyptians used to bury architects of the pyramids in the structure. So we should keep an eye on those egyptians, in case they do it again.

I know I'm watching.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Now knee-jerk and post one of me

hm...maybe you two should just get a room.

[Timo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
I AM NOT STARTING THE ABORTION DEBATE.

Heh. Only time will tell.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Timo:
I know I'm watching.

I know I'm also keeping an eye on doctors, just to be sure they don't start using leeches again.

[BlackGriffen]

And so the great wheel turns again. I wonder if I'm going to have to pretend to be a personatheist to find a job in 25 years? Or, is this one of the death throes of religion, briefly rising again before returning to its descent in to oblivion? Is this the beginning of the rejection of science for not having all of the answers right now?

**** it. It's Tuesday, and I'm going to have pizza for dinner.

Humanity seeks the answer for what it is, looking to the past, and the world around them for clues, unable to find a mirror.

BlackGriffen

[boots]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
\And, how are you going to effectively administer aid, if you distribute monies to every single denomination in a given area? Unless they work together and pool their operations, that means you have just multiplied the administrative overhead and staff for distribution of aid by as many denominations as are in your area.
that's hardly efficient, in fact, its counter-productive. that will seriously deplete the amount that is actually available.

I never thought of in terms of efficiency. You're right, to an extent. I know that the homeless shelter I ran could have used the extra money. And it was all volunteer, so there really wasn't any overhead. Unless you count the paper used to write the grant proposal...minimal compared to what we could have done with the grant.

We did get lucky enough to get a vista-volunteer to help with a lot of the coordination, and that helped immensly. So I guess we did end up with help from the government after all.

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by benb:
And to say that only uneducated, underprivlidged people accepting Christianity is very false, and rude. It is true that there are less, but that cannot be attributed to one factor. There are many factors that could contribute to why more "intelligent" people don't believe, but that are directly related to intelligence and education levels. Say for instance, income.

I've driven all the way to FL, and the further South you go, the more churches you see. You also see more and more poverty. Coincidence? I think not.

- Ca$h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by boots:
I never thought of in terms of efficiency. You're right, to an extent. I know that the homeless shelter I ran could have used the extra money. And it was all volunteer, so there really wasn't any overhead. Unless you count the paper used to write the grant proposal...minimal compared to what we could have done with the grant.

We did get lucky enough to get a vista-volunteer to help with a lot of the coordination, and that helped immensly. So I guess we did end up with help from the government after all.

but that will end with faith-based intiatives....in order to qualify, the paperwork involved will skyrocket, and charities that previously did not have to be concerned with such things will find their resources being redirected towards managing and recording the government funds.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I've driven all the way to FL, and the further South you go, the more churches you see. You also see more and more poverty. Coincidence? I think not.

- Ca$h

You make fun of "stupid southern" people, at the same time, you make statements like this.

You crack me up sometimse Cash, really you do.



Talk about ignorance.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I've driven all the way to FL, and the further South you go, the more churches you see. You also see more and more poverty. Coincidence? I think not.

- Ca$h

It could also simply be that in poverty-stricken areas there is less infrastructure so that churches stand out.
The affluent and educated also attend churches...but that's usually in areas where the churches are surrounded by more buildings and residential and commercial development.

You're really reaching with that one.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Socially Awkward Solo:
Now knee-jerk and post one of me [/B]

Oh wow, another lame attempt at derailing the topic. Another one trick poney.

[imaxxedout]

No... I'm not. If you're poor, have no education, and your whole family is inbred, and you live int he south, guess what a big part of your life will be??

THA LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to but I'm SURE someone could dig up statistics on uneducated poor people turning to religon for their 'hope'.

- Ca$h

[miykael]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
I've driven all the way to FL, and the further South you go, the more churches you see. You also see more and more poverty. Coincidence? I think not.

- Ca$h

Are you saying that there is a direct correlation between the number of churches and the poverty rate? For example, the more churches there are in an area, the higher the poverty rate in that area?

I am aghast! Unbelievable.

Then again, I do realize that you're just poking fun and being deliberately confrontational in your own way... (which can be fun) because if you weren't, I'd have to say that what you wrote is one of the more stupid comments I've ever read.

Thanks,

[BRussell]

Timo, you're a low-down dirty post whore for starting this thread.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by imaxxedout:
No... I'm not. If you're poor, have no education, and your whole family is inbred, and you live int he south, guess what a big part of your life will be??

THA LORD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'm not going to but I'm SURE someone could dig up statistics on uneducated poor people turning to religon for their 'hope'.

- Ca$h

wow. Quite the poster child for bigotry. I hope the antitheists secure better representation in the future.

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by miykael:
Are you saying that there is a direct correlation between the number of churches and the poverty rate? For example, the more churches there are in an area, the higher the poverty rate in that area?

No. The other way around. The poorer a region is, the more they will turn to religon. And crime, which is kinda ironic.

- Ca$h

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
wow. Quite the poster child for bigotry. I hope the antitheists secure better representation in the future.

Is it me or does he read as the same people he is trying to make fun of? You know the inbred intolerant rednecks.

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
wow. Quite the poster child for bigotry. I hope the antitheists secure better representation in the future.

Go ahead, deny it. Everyone knows its true. The southern stereotype is an uneducated religous person. There are reasons stereotypes exist; they're somewhat true.

- Ca$h

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by miykael:
because if you weren't, I'd have to say that what you wrote is one of the more stupid comments I've ever read.

Thanks,

um...hate to break it to you, but ca$h was being serious.
He has a real obsession for christian-bashing. Just wait, and pretty soon he'll start accuse specific christians of being child molestors and get banned again.

[boots]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
First of all, I think it starts with what we consider to be the role of government and society and individual liberty.

good luck getting people to agree on that social contract.

The American experiment (founded on the radical ideas of Classical Liberalism) is based on the idea that government only exists to protect individual Liberty. Any constraint on Liberty must be vigorously challenged and carefully justified by a clear common interest. In instances where we cannot agree on a common interest, it must default to Liberty.

But we included a bill of rights, among other things such as super majorities, to make sure that the rights of the minority are not rampled upon. With that in mind:

It essentially boils down to a question of "what is life" and "what makes a person a person". I have yet to see this argued successfully for either side in such a way to make a compelling case to suggest that we curtail Liberty. Both sides simply don't agree on these questions, therefore, the government's role is keep out of it and allow individuals to exercise their Liberty.

For an issue with that much at stake (life, let alone liberty and the pursuit of poperty...I mean happiness), we need to be carefull withour definitions. This kind of transcends the boundries you are creating. I would think an effective argument can be made that the termination of life is a trampling of the minority's right to life...etc.

In another context, capitol punishment could be viewed through the same lense.

I guess the question really is, to who's liberty are we defaulting? The majority? What about the explicit intent to protect the rights of the minority?

(Just probing and playing devil's advocate. I like the model, but see some problems in application.)

(Yes, I skirted the "when does life begin" issue as I don't want to force this into an abortion debate.)

<----DISCLAIMER------>
Just testing the limits of TF's secular democracy as it would/should work. Not trying to start a capitol punishment flame-fest.

[imaxxedout]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Is it me or does he read as the same people he is trying to make fun of? You know the inbred intolerant rednecks.

Hardly. I come from a upper/middle class suburban neighborhood, not remotely redneckish, poor, or uneducated. But good idea! When I bring up something you can't refute and you don't want to admit I'm correct, just attack me as a person with made up qualities, that'll work!



- Ca$h