The BoR doesn't care about the "typical" view. It cares about all views. What is "typical" only means... that the "typical" people can strongarm others.
You misunderstood what I meant. I was just trying to encapsulate how the abortion debate was typically viewed, using the BoR. That is the people who view abortion as murder would argue that all the rights of the "child" were being violated, while those who do not view it as murder (and so are prochoice) view only the woman's reproductive rights as being violated.
The state doesn't have to admit anything. It's not the state's job to judge the "validity" of any religion. It's the state's job to accommodate it.
Again, there has been a misunderstanding. I guess I need to use better terminology. By "admit" I did not mean judge validity, I was using it in the sense of "allow to enter". As in the usher will admit you to the theater if you have a ticket.
I guess I could have used the phrase "entertain the possibility for sake of compromise".
It does not seem to me that just because a group has an idea, even a popular one, that is strongly felt, that it is something which by its nature, can't be proscribed for compromise by the state. By allowing them to choose and live as they want, their belief has been accomodated. To allow their beliefs to be enforced on others (even in part) is to suddenly no longer accomodate other beliefs.
You're saying you can judge the validity of religion using science. Science doesn't have such power. Science is not about epistemological "truth", it is about describing, in an incremental way, how the natural world works. Science can say nothing about whether there's a soul in a sperm or what.
I was actually trying for something a bit deeper than just science judging religion. Remember I was using the "humunculus" version of reproduction... that WAS SCIENCE. It took more scientific investigation to reverse that idea. So I was actually appealing to any and all beliefs, including those scientific beliefs which had been rejected by later science.
If a person clings to earlier scientific knowledge, must it still be accomodated for compromise by the state?
But let's say I meant it from a "religious" view. Science can certainly deal with epistemic KNOWLEDGE, even if it can'd get at metaphysical TRUTH. I think you made an equivocation between the two. If in fact we are to deny epistemic knowledge for use in law then essentially everything is up for grabs and I would fight that state with every fiber of my being.
What progress or safety could there be in such an ad hoc nation?
From the standpoint of epistemic KNOWLEDGE we could very well dismiss any scientific or religious claims to the humunculus theory of reproduction. Masturbation is not murder of little tiny humans. Sperm cells can be seen and dissected. To deny this for reason of accomodation and compromise, would be to reject reason itself.
The majority have the ability to strongarm the minority. The reason the majority should want to compromise is to avoid war, avoid weakinging our country via internal strife.
This is only partly correct. For sure an unchecked political majority can always strongarm a minority. One reason to avoid this would be to avoid conflict (including real violence). Two problems...
1) There is another reason, which was discussed by the founding fathers, and that is more than mere temporary stability and safety for the majority. At some point the majority could become the minority. Proscriptions protect the beliefs of the current majority. It is actually a prudent measure to defend the rights of minorities as one day it can protect yourself. If your precedent is of strongarming based on political power, that is likely to be your own fate in the future. And wisely, this also protects the state itself by keeping laws focused and consistent over time. If domination of the minority by the majority was the rule, then laws would be turning over much more quickly and dissatisfaction with the state would be high.
2) Given the above, proscriptions were written into our govt which is the BoR. Those proscriptions inherently act as a check on the majority so that they cannot politically strongarm minorities.
I would deny that majority strongarming has been the absolute rule in this nation, and indeed civil rights victories in the US point to the fact that minorities CAN block political majorities when their rights are being compromised away.
I might add that the recent removal of anti gay sex legislation is yet another instance of this. Clearly the majority (especially in specific states) find gay sex to be harmful, and I do mean an overtly harmful act. According to you gays should accomodate those majorities?
But we have the ability to strongarm groups any time we want. It's what's been going on. That's why abortion policy changes based on the current administration. It's a policy of strongarming. It's getting us nowhere except a weaker nation.
Legally we don't have that ability. If no one stands up to defend the rule of law, then of course we revert to jungle law, and the majority wins.
That is why I find this administration particularly repulsive. Bush and Co consistently refer to the "rule of law" yet repeatedly reject actual civil law, and act only on the law of the jungle. I mean they even suggest that only might makes right and that majorities should not have their desires checked by minorities. They are of course traitors.
I guess I would like to stay away from drawing lessons from how Bush and Co are abusing the state. To my mind they are not reps of what anyone should be doing. And I agree they are creating a weaker nation.
What I don't understand is why you think they'd be willing to compromise at all. I have not seen one overture toward the possibility of compromise on their part. It almost sounds like appeasement, to suggest if we compromise they will actually be satisfied and not further erode our rights, or will accomodate our beliefs.
Bush Sr is on record as having said atheists cannot be patriots or American.
Why should personhood be based on physical characteristics? Where did your determiniation of that come from? Why is naturalism a more valid way of determining personhood than any other method?
Because physical characteristics are the only characteristics we can (and that means all of us) measure, and so make a determination of whether a person qualifies as a person. Can you name any nonphysical characteristic a religious person could use that would be practical?
By the way, I was not attempting to say there are no spiritual components to life or in any way denying religious beliefs from being "true". I am simply trying to suggest that when the state comes in to identify if an entity is a person, that it will ultimately have to appeal to physical characteristics.
I thought RAZDs argument was a strong one, using how we separate "dead" from "alive" to create a distinction. I would hope even religious people admit that there is death, and so an absence of life.
By the way I still disagree about your assessment of killing and the BoR. I think you're not addressing a lot of cases, and avoided the animal cases.
I'm not sure what you meant by this. It may be that I skipped something to focus on the prime points. You may revive these if you want. I definitely don't want to avoid anything.
And by the way #2, I'm enjoying talking about this with you. It's good to feel that you're being listened to and that points you make are being answered directly.
Thanks, I like your writing as well. You've been consistently high quality, and challenging. I never felt like any of the miscommunications have been anyone's fault nor an intentional attempt at dodging.
I will apologize in advance if my responses start getting more spaced out (in time). I am getting a bit busier with things (including some good weather) and so may not respond every day.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2
