I have major problems with today’s political spectrum.
One, I don’t believe in restricting economic freedom. I especially hate socialism. This means I hate the views of the Democratic Party.
Two, I hate other forms of restrictions on personal freedom. The latter includes not only sexual freedom, but the right to use one’s body as one pleases. Meaning the ingestion of whatever substances one might want to ingest (even for admittedly harmful purposes), the right to commit suicide, to sell one’s body (or bodily functions), etc. This means I hate the politics of both major parties because restricting sex, drugs, pleasure is a major part of what they’re about. Sure the left plays a bogus game of saying they’re for freedom, but the biggest enemies of sexual freedom today (especially on college campuses) are Democrats.
Three, I do not believe that religious opinions are any more worthy of respect than secular opinions. I think religion, like sex, ought to be a matter of personal autonomy, and I would of course defend anyone’s right to have and hold his or her views. But I also would defend my right not to have or hold the views of others, and it creeps me out to see people demanding that I respect views I do not respect. An opinion I do not respect is no more worthy of respect because it is grounded in religion than is any other opinion, and anyone who tells me that it is I distrust. And, just as I have the right to disagree with the nutcase view that socialism can be made to work, I also have the right to disagree with the nutcase view that evolution did not occur, and/or that the earth is 10,000 years old. Similarly, I have just as much right to disagree with the nutcase idea that if I am not hysterical about global warming I am “part of the problem” and no better than a Holocaust Denier.
In short, I am tired of this creepy feeling that I should tiptoe around, lest my disagreements with nutcases “offend” the nutcases.
What worries me is this. I avoid people of both parties who are so hypersensitive that they require a kid-gloves approach. People who are so insecure as to require trigger warnings or the equivalent are too much trouble. So are nutcases who go bonkers over having their nutcase beliefs so much as questioned.
I hate to say something this silly, but I hope we’re not headed for civil war.
UPDATE: Many thanks to Sarah Hoyt at Instapundit for the link, and a warm welcome to all!
Comments
33 responses to “Whose hands are on the warning triggers?”
most people in prision and polluters agree with you.
I hate to say something this silly, but I hope we’re not headed for civil war.
Whoa, where did that come from?
So then do you think social order is breaking down to the point of widespread unrest and given the proper trigger we will have open rebellion leading to civil war? Or do you believe it is being engineered at the highest levels of government? Or are there those on the right who realize they have already lost the culture and know the remnants of economic and personal freedom are next to go and are thus preparing for a last stand? Please fill us in.
BTW Eric, it’s too bad you weren’t up in the Berkeley hills about 6:00 pm last evening for the pulsar light show along the coast. I wonder if they are preparing for something.
[…] I WISH IT WERE SILLY:Whose hands are on the warning triggers? […]
*shrug* I think Billy Beck called it way back in 2003, Eric. I’m not real fond of the idea myself, but his comment that “all politics in this country is nothing but dress rehearsal for a full scale civil war” is looking more and more prescient every year.
If we are, there won’t be just two sides slugging it out- it’s going to be a free-for-all.
You and I both, brother. I have hope it can be averted, but it feels like another 20 or so years could bring it.
Are you being particularly careful not to offend Baptists?
“Three, I do not believe that religious opinions are any more worthy of respect than secular opinions.”
Then I suppose you must not, for example, have heard of the Crusades, 30 Years War, Protestant Reformation et sequelae, etc…
Religious faith is not like secular opinion. You cannot reason someone out of an opinion they have not been reasoned into. Your feeling about the matter, were it to be taken to its logical conclusion in law and freedom of religion be removed from the constitution, would effectively mean the extinction of the Amish–never mind what would befall Jews and the bris, and others would suffer drastically and not peaceably.
Congratulations, you’re a tyrant at heart. You fear civil war?
You express a viewpoint which guarantees it.
Personally, I would not side with you.
@Tom Perkins
Your entire comment is absurd.
“Your feeling .. taken to its logical conclusion .. freedom of religion be removed from the constitution”
Unless you think that the author is against freedom of opinion, you cannot suggest he is against freedom of religion.
Also unless you didn’t read the post.
BTW, one can be reasoned into and out of religious faith.
C.S Lewis defined faith as (paraphrased) maintaining a belief that you have once accepted by reason, in spite of your changing mood.
This applies to any theistic or secular faith: e.g., Christianity, Climate Alarmism, et c.
> …I do not believe that religious opinions are any more worthy of respect than secular opinions. I think religion, like sex, ought to be a matter of personal autonomy, and I would of course defend anyone’s right to have and hold his or her views.
Well, as a Christian, of course I’m grateful that someone who is not a Christian thinks I ought to be able to hold views he doesn’t.
I’m grateful because lots of folks don’t see it that way. They want to force us to approve of things that a lot of us don’t and can’t.
But I want simply to look at your statement and highlight one thing:
You have reduced all values disputes to being a matter of opinion.
Since we don’t want to be inconsistent, we now have to re-write one of the key statements in the Declaration of Independence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
That just won’t do, will it? Personal autonomy and all. It should really creep us out that Jefferson demanded respect for his little manifesto by simply linking it to a “Creator” like some nutcase Creationist.
Let’s try a little re-write. How’s this?
“We hold our own strong opinion, that all men *and* women have, through the eons, evolved by random mutation and natural selection with a desire to have certain prerogatives that are to be recognized by the secular authorities — that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness — if it pleases you.”
I struggled with this because, if there is no absolute and transcendent source of moral authority, but only creatures with slimy and roughly documented origins fighting for their own foothold in life, I just had trouble seeing the concept of “rights” and couldn’t see how they could be considered “inalienable”. The ethics of evolution is that the strong survive and the weak perish. If I am strong, and you are weak, why am I obliged to humor your weakness and allow your weak genes to foul up the pool?
Opinions differ, of course. Margaret Sanger and certain other Godwin-prohibited individuals who belong in this discussion had an opinion about “inalienable rights” with respect to the gene pool; Thomas Jefferson had another; Ted Bundy had yet another. Are two opinions greater than one? We have to settle these disputes somehow.
The problem with opinions is that opinions are not authoritative. Everything you said in your post, after all, is no more than your opinion. Nothing makes it a higher truth if there is no higher truth.
[…] Source: Classical Values » Whose hands are on the warning triggers? […]
@Reformed Trombonist
Intellectually honest atheists agree with the meat of your post — that without God there is no moral Truth and no personal rights.
The wise among them will also agree that God-based morality is the best basis for society.
Voltaire: “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him.”
I see no problem for Atheists in a society which asserts that humans have rights granted by God.
I see problems for all of us in a society which asserts that humans have rights granted by the State.
@asdf wrote
“Unless you think that the author is against freedom of opinion, you cannot suggest he is against freedom of religion.”
and the OP wrote
“Three, I do not believe that religious opinions are any more worthy of respect than secular opinions. I think religion, like sex, ought to be a matter of personal autonomy, and I would of course defend anyone’s right to have and hold his or her views. But I also would defend my right not to have or hold the views of others, and it creeps me out to see people demanding that I respect views I do not respect. ”
There is no meaningful way to disrespect views, in the context of civil war, other than to pass and enforce laws which do not respect those views–or of course to prosecute the war without benefit of such laws. I believe the above quoted section of the OP has no discernible meaning at all, if it does not mean the that author feels there is some distinction being drawn in law between religious freedom and his freedom of opinion.
I submit it is not possible to have freedom of opinion without freedom of religion, written in either order–but that his notion that he is in any respect being forced to obey other people’s religious views is utterly mistaken.
He is welcome to say specifically how he feels he is being so compelled.
@ asdf, I believe you meant to write this
“Intellectually honest atheists disagree with the meat of your post — that without God there is no moral Truth and no personal rights.”
@askeptic: “If we are, there won’t be just two sides slugging it out- it’s going to be a free-for-all.”
Heh. Plenty of ammo and all the fuckwits one can shoot. 😉
Except, of course, that going by ammofinder these days – there’s not plenty of ammo available. Le sigh.
Agreed. There’ll be a lot more than two sides. It’ll be a free fire zone, more than likely.
Upside is that by my read on things, I believe that we’re still at least a couple of decades away from leaving the dress rehearsal stage. Barring something tipping a flashpoint over past the breaking stage, anyway.
*shrug* We shall see.
@asdf:
“Intellectually honest atheists agree with the meat of your post — that without God there is no moral Truth and no personal rights.”
Nietsche looked down his nose at the British of his day, whose intellectuals looked down their nose at Christianity as unenlightened opinion, yet they still adhered to its morals, customs and conventions. Going full Nietsche would mean living one’s life in accordance with one’s sense of values.
I’ve looked at the alleged proofs of God’s existence, from Aquinas to Van Til, and I’m not equipped philosophically to say whether the proofs are valid or not. The criticism of Van Til’s proof is he begs the question; but I know Van Til would respond that, at some level, we all beg the question — we all assume to be true many things for which we have no proof.
But this I do know: only someone morally higher than men are, on some sort of metaphysical plane, can offer any moral principles that hold authority over mankind. Either someone exists who has moral authority over us, or there is no such thing as a moral authority; there are only things we like, things we dislike, and things about which we are indifferent. Everything is just a matter of preferences — feelings, opinions, desires.
The atheist usually tries to prop up reason as the arbiter of moral truth — I mean, we have to appeal to something higher than mere preferences, right? But the problem with that is reason is morally neutral. We can use reason to justify pretty much anything we do, from deciding what to eat to deciding which part of the human race we should kill off. Reason is a servant, just a tool, no more. It can help you get where you want to do; it can’t tell you where you should want to go.
There is another objection to my thesis: that values debates are pointless, even if we grant the existence of a Creator, because they too are just a matter of opinion. Catholics disagree with Lutherans with Buddhists with Muslims with Wyccans. That’s no better than what we have without such a Creator.
That depends on what reality means. Either there is no absolute truth and it’s all just a set of prevailing opinion, or there is an absolute truth that we can only perceive subjectively.
We have that same problem in many other areas. We all perceive reality in a subjective way, but that doesn’t mean all things are subjective. If there is a higher truth, it not only exists, but there is nothing more important; we aren’t forced to heed it, but there may come a reckoning — a judgment day, if you will.
But if there is no higher truth, then what really matters is only this: do I want to do something? and how do I keep from getting caught?
While I do not respect your stupid opinions or beliefs, I can still respect you at least until you demand I participate in your nonsense to show respect for your opinions in order to respect you. That means if you equate your whole identity with your stupid opinions, well . . .
Unless there is a higher truth, your opinion that you should not be forced to respect others’ opinions is also an opinion. And “stupid” is just a label.
@Tom Perkins
I think you have missed and misrepresented the OP’s point and mine.
“There is no meaningful way to disrespect views, in the context of civil war, other than to pass and enforce laws which do not respect those views”
The context is not civil war. Civil war is raised as a concern.
Of course it is possible to disrespect someone else’s view without calling for a law which would punish them!
The OP is expressing concern that this view is going by the wayside and being replaced by totalitarianism on both sides, which if the trajectory continues, could lead to civil war.
@Tom Perkins
>@asdf, I believe you meant to write this
>
>“Intellectually honest atheists DISagree with >the meat of your post — that without God there >is no moral Truth and no personal rights.”
No. I did not.
@Reformed Trombonist
Hi. I like a lot of your input here.
“There is another objection .. that values debates are pointless, even if .. Creator .. Catholics disagree with Lutherans with Buddhists with Muslims with Wyccans.”
I can’t speak for all of those value systems, but my general response is:
If there is a Creator and objective moral truth, then we ought to strive for a more perfect understanding of the moral truth. That includes debating those with whom we differ.
“only someone morally higher than men are, on some sort of metaphysical plane, can offer any moral principles that hold authority over mankind. Either someone exists who has moral authority over us, or there is no such thing as a moral authority”
Well put and right.
“I’ve looked at the alleged proofs of God’s existence, from Aquinas to Van Til, and I’m not equipped philosophically to say whether the proofs are valid or not.”
I can roughly echo this statement. To me, it is clear that the first event in the physical world had a metaphysical cause. But, I know that is not compelling to the anti-theist.
There is a common trope that God cannot be proven(or disproven).
This may be true in terms of formal proofs and between man and man.
But it is not true between man and God.
God CAN be proven by any man to himself through mental prayer.
freedom of religion so human sacrifice in the name of religion is o.k.?
> freedom of religion so human sacrifice in the name of religion is o.k.?
In the name of atheism, human sacrifices are called re-education camps and abortion.
reformed you are pro abortion if you don’t support welfare and ending the harassment of welfare moms you are encouraging abortions! re-education camps are necessary to re-educate conservatives.
I am most definitely not pro-abortion, but thanks for playing.
> re-education camps are necessary to re-educate conservatives.
Here it is, folks. This is what liberals have in mind for you. And “you” includes trendy libertarians, though they may get to us first and you second.
Well. It gets worse.
Democrat says: Men’s Opinions Not Welcome.
reformed unfortunetly I have a minority view in the democratic party most want to reason with you. I keep telling them with unreasonable people you have to be unreasonable. as b.f. skinner said you can ket more with a kind word and a cattle prod then you can with just a kind word. also why conservative should be brought to justice states that have obama care the mortality rate is going down white states that refused it is not. in fact the mortality rate for white males in these states is going up which is not all bad as they can’t vote after they die even in chicago!
> I have a minority view in the democratic party most want to reason with you.
Really? The ones I meet sound like you.
> I keep telling them with unreasonable people you have to be unreasonable.
You’re doing a good job of being unreasonable.
> b.f. skinner said you can ket more with a kind word and a cattle prod then you can with just a kind word.
Funny you should bring up B.F. Skinner, because I think he would have agreed with everything I said in my initial post, 100%.
I have no idea why you brought ObamaCare into this discussion in the first place; that was not brought up in this thread until you introduced, and I have said nothing about it, pro, con, or in between.
No, run off and go be unreasonable with someone else, maybe your dog, or your coat rack.
@asdf
“But it is not true between man and God.
God CAN be proven by any man to himself through mental prayer.”
No. I spent a couple of years trying – really trying to be a good Christian. I prayed and prayed and prayed.
Either God hates me, or your prayer is only a self-defined “safe space.”
I reverted to agnostic, and there I shall stay. I have no proof for or against. And, quite frankly – I don’t much care anymore.
@Kathy Kinsley
“I spent a couple of years trying to be a good Christian”
“Either God hates me, or..”
There couldn’t be any other option?
I can think of at least 5 other options which could block or diminish your relationship with God:
You were living in sin,
You were living ungratefully,
You lacked bodily mortification(fasting),
You lacked spiritual mortification(humbling yourself and keeping a proper perspective of your own importance)
You lacked spiritual reading.
You set out to be a good Christian but struggled with prayer and doubt.
Did you read the writings of the saints/early Christians on those topics(e.g., Ignatius/Augustine on doubt, Ignatius/Alphonsus/Teresa of Avila on prayer)?
Oh. You didn’t? Didn’t you think someone in the last 2000 years had the same questions. Don’t you want to know what answers they found?
Or maybe none of them were as bright as Kathy Kinsley.
“I don’t much care anymore.”
You probably didn’t care much then either.
That might have something to do with your failure.
“Dear God if you’re out there please show me a sign, by giving me what I want. Otherwise, I will do what I want MYSELF.”
Hi Kathy,
Do you notice how easily ‘blaming the victim’ comes to those who would discount your internal state while vociferously asserting the universal validity of their own?
Just another instance of the ‘Motte and Bailey’ Fallacy. Or, perhaps, just ‘Bait and Switch’.