Can we talk about spirituality?
I do not refer to a politely equivocating spirituality, to the New Age patter so heartily embraced in the Pacific Northwest and elsewhere. No, I refer to a spirituality with sharp edges, one loathed by the pious and atheists alike. It is egalitarian, scientific, demonstrable and falsifiable—in other words, it is dangerous. Fundamentalists on all sides would prefer it did not exist.
Please take note: I am not asking you to believe this. Let’s just talk about it for a moment.
At a sufficiently high level, martial arts and spirituality are entwined. At the same time, spirituality is clearly a religious issue, and religion is a political issue. So…can we talk about politics too?
Yesterday, the New York Times reported on vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s service in Alaskan government. After conducting dozens of interviews with Republican and Democratic legislators, the Times recounted a history of cronyism, petty personal vendettas, flagrant abuse of public records laws, even attacks on the endangered status of the polar bear.
None of that troubles me as much as her attempts to “reform” the Wasilla city library. According to the Anchorage Daily News, Sarah Palin asked the head librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, about removing objectionable books from the collection. Palin repeated this question three times. Emmons refused to cooperate.
Why did Palin keep repeating her “rhetorical” question? Obviously, because Emmons kept giving her the wrong answer. A few months later, Emmons was fired:
”I do not feel I have your full support in my efforts to govern the city of Wasilla. Therefore I intend to terminate your employment…”
I don’t really care whether Mayor Sarah Palin successfully censored a small-town library twelve years ago. If history is any indication, Vice President Palin would consider book banning to be worthy of serious consideration. It is not. Censorship is as un-American as an Imperial Presidency.
There are places in this world, even today, where participants in this very discussion would be sent to prison (or to an unmarked grave). Our Constitution and Bill of Rights were meant to prevent such tyrannical abuses—but these documents are only as good as the men and women who honor them. Choose carefully in November.
Loading ...
62 responses so far ↓
1 Citizen Duck // Sep 16, 2008
Wow, I thought this blog was about martial development. Seems it’s a political blog.
Oh well, been nice reading it.
2 Chris // Sep 16, 2008
I try not to stop at the shallow perspective, that considers everything to be separate–especially when the issues are so clearly linked as I explain above. Perhaps it is best that you leave, before your fragile beliefs are further challenged.
3 Skeeva // Sep 18, 2008
Interesting perspective. As a martial arts devotee, I agree that censorship is bad. I believe martial arts is a way of life. Life is the greatest gift that we have and to use it appropriately and protect it when necessary is inextricably intertwined with martial arts. Just as Palin has deemed censorship to be a worthy cause, so has Obama deemed death to be a worthy cause. He has voted to reject a law that was to be passed to protect a child that is born living (after an attempt to abort that child’s life failed). He feels that since the mother did not want it, even though it is born and living, the child should be left to die. While censorship is abhorrent, in some cases it is necessary. We do not and should not allow child pornography in any library. That is a form of censorship, but protective. We should however, always allow a child to live if they are already living, and some might argue if they are viable outside the womb. I hope that you have beliefs that are readily challenged and have the courage to post this response.
4 Bob // Sep 18, 2008
Didn’t you just censor Citizen Duck??
I don’t think you need to ask him to leave either, sounds like he already made that choice!
5 Chris // Sep 18, 2008
Bob, I did not censor Citizen Duck, I censured him. You don’t need to learn the difference, but you ought to.
6 elf_man // Sep 19, 2008
Talk about an overreaction, one post and he decides it’s a “political blog”.
Ever heard of a septic pregnancy ward? Yeah, there’s no doubt that the choice to have an abortion must be legal; it’s like prohibition, we take it away, people will continue to do it but with no regulation and much, much worse consequences.. Where to draw the line at that point is another question, but better to see Obama go a little too far in favor than have someone like McCain take it away completely.
7 Skeeva // Sep 19, 2008
So, you agree that life is not an intrinsic value? That when a child is born and living, we should still KILL the baby, because the mother doesn’t want it? There are many fundamental problems with your view, but a couple would be.
1 Some people do not believe abortion is right. So, why should their money go to pay for Abortion?
2 A living being has every right to life. If the child is living and outside the womb, how in any right mind can you justify letting it die and not taking care of it? The next logical step to your argument is, Old people who are no longer wanted bytheir family should not be protected. People should be able to leave senior citizens to die if they cannot take care of themselves. The difference between your thoughts and mine are - I believe that a living person has intrinsic value (worth) because they are human and alive. You believe that a person should only be allowed to live if they are not an inconvenience or someone wants them to live.
Even state law in 40 states agrees that if a pregnant mother is murdered the murderer is charged with a double homicide. State law recognizes a baby in the womb as something capable of being murdered. Why would this not be the case when the baby is living outside the womb?
8 elf_man // Sep 19, 2008
No, I made no statement in support or against that particular law. I said going too far in that direction is preferable to removing all choice of abortion. Where we draw the line is another matter (such as whether that particular law should have been passed or not) is another matter.
To make it even clearer, no, I do not support partial birth abortions (I think that’s what you’re referring to). But then, it’s up to the woman (and anyone else who might have a say) to make that choice. We’re better off dealing with the specifics and the consequences of having that choice available, then we are with outlawing abortion completely. Most people who claim to be anti-abortion still allow for specific exceptions, making them technically pro-choice. Obvious not Palin, but that isn’t the point.
I’m not even going to approach the argument about whether or not life has intrinsic value, which I should say is different from whether or not an unborn child has intrinsic value; you may want to bring it in, but as far as I’m concerned it’s outside the scope of these posts.
9 skeeva // Sep 19, 2008
Let’s try not to get confused. And I appreciate the dialogue.
As I’ve stated before, martial arts are about life. Life is valuable and needs to be protected regardless of if I or anyone else decides that the other life is an “inconvenience” or does not have the right to live.
The points are pretty clear. If you believe (as Obama does) that a fully living and born child does not have the right to protection and life, because the mother wanted it aborted, then you believe that the life of that child, is only valuable if the mother wants it. I believe that the life of the child is valuable regardless of if the mother wants the child or not.
These two decisions (whether a child should be protected and live because it is a human being, or whether the child should not be protected and cared for and left to die because the mother chooses that) is the fundamental difference between us.
After that, it is a logical step - one which you have made - to say that partial birth abortion is wrong. To birth a baby completely except for the head and then to pierce the skull and suck the brains out is evil. It is the taking of a human life, just as is not caring for a fully born baby, because that baby was supposed to be aborted. When this is done we are saying that the child has no intrinsic value or worth UNLESS the mother wants it.
So, as a martial artists and a human, I will vote to protect the life of a child, because life is an inalienable right that we all should be granted because we are human. Life is not a right that is granted only when someone decides that we should have that life. I would much rather someone say I can’t read a particular book and take that book from me, than someone say that My life is an inconvenience or not worthy and take my life away.
10 elf_man // Sep 19, 2008
Yeah, fair enough. But the choice isn’t between censorship and abortion, it’s between an inappropriate form of abortion or no abortion whatsoever. The McCain/Palin side of things supports censoring books and taking away abortion completely. And as with the septic pregnancy wards I referred to, if you want to go with a “most suffering” viewpoint, taking away abortion completely is far, far worse than allowing partial-birth abortions, which are relatively uncommon to begin with. Especially when their views (at least in Palin’s case, I think McCain believes the same) want abstinence-only sex education, which has been shown repeatedly to increase the situations where abortion (of any sort) is suddenly a reasonable option, never mind something like partial birth. McCain and Palin want to legislate religiously based views that remove people’s ability to make personal choices; while I disagree with partial-birth abortions, I would rather deal with the consequences of that than the much greater erosion of freedoms represented by the other side.
11 skeeva // Sep 19, 2008
Well, I think we can agree to disagree. Thanks for the honest dialogue. No, the choice isn’t between censorship and abortion. It is about electing a president who believes that fully living and born children have a right to protection because they are human, or electing a president that believes they have no right to protection because their mother does not want them.
1) However, I still think it is unreasonable to let a fully born baby die, because the mother tried to abort it, but failed. Obama does not think this is unreasonable and will not vote to protect that child. It goes a long way to show what his beliefs are about the intrinsic value of human life.
2) Not you or I can be sure if a 1 month old baby is human. Some believe they are, some don’t. But what about a 3, 5, 7 or 9 month old. When you say, partial birth abortions (which are evil) are uncommon, that’s like saying, it may be bad, but because it doesn’t happen very often, we should just let it be.
As martial artists we fight for what is right. “The only thing that evil needs to succeed is for the good to be silent.”
So, let me give you another analogy, if we are out hunting and we know there might be other hunters in the forest and we hear a rustling in the bush, do we-
a) Shoot to kill, because we are not sure if it is a hunter or a deer?
b) Not shoot to kill until we are sure that it is not a human being, because then we would be taking a life if it is?
I appreciate the open and thought provoking dialogue!
12 skeeva // Sep 19, 2008
One other topic, when you say erosion of freedoms, what greater erosion of freedom is there than the erosion of freedom to life?
13 elf_man // Sep 19, 2008
Again, I do not support partial-birth abortions either. But relative to the pain and suffering caused by outlawing all abortion, that caused by legal partial-birth abortions is minor. I would rather have to fight against that than not have abortions available at all. Outlawing abortion is actually far more anti-life than even partial-birth abortion; it’s just easier to point to specific instances with partial-birth, especially since the horrors of abortion being completely illegal have gone away for so long. Given studies on abortion rates and the health of mothers before and after Roe v Wade, I prefer that all abortion be legal over no abortion; figuring out where to draw the line in legal abortion is the better fight, in which we should err on the side of free choice for the people involved. Here was a NY Times article that’s a good example. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/03/health/views/03essa.html?ei=5124&en=a866eb4f19d8a37e&ex=1370232000&adxnnl=1&partner=facebook&exprod=facebook&adxnnlx=1221847019-/G+nBypx1GxhzthyxHbLWg
As for freedoms, I refer to the fact that they’re basically trying to legislate their specific religous views, over what reality has shown to be the case. Again, it’s like prohibition; it didn’t work, and the consequences were worse than if they hadn’t outlawed alcohol.
14 skeeva // Sep 19, 2008
I think we are missing the main point. The idea that I’ve been trying to get understood is that we act based upon who we are. The most basic/fundamental/important freedom we have is the freedom to live. If you are not free to live (meaning someone else determines if you are allowed to live or die) then no other freedom matters to you.
So, there are two thoughts. One is that it appear that you and Obama agree that, a child that is born and living (whether completely born out of the womb, or completely birthed except for the head) do not have the right to live/freedom of life unless the mother says they do. If the mother does not want the child, then the child is murdered (either by sucking the brains out or by not being cared for until they pass away).
The other school of thought is that a child has the right to life and is valuable regardless of whether the mother wants that child. The mother does not have the right to decide if the child lives or dies, the child by being human and having intrinsic value, does have the right to life.
We can go on and debate about whether morally abortion is wrong or what the consequences are if it is legal or illegal. But what I am asking is - Do you think (as Obama) that a mother should be able to choose if a born child (completely out of the womb) should be put to death?
I argue that that is completely wrong and anyone who does believe in that view should not be given Executive Power.
So, my question to you is- Which do you think is right? A child can be killed by the mother if she does not want it, or a child has the right to life, the freedom to live regardless of if the mother tried to abort it and failed or not?
15 elf_man // Sep 19, 2008
I agree, it should not be allowed, unless the mother’s life is directly threatened at time of birth. It’s the “should not be given executive power” conclusion that I disagree with. Again, I propose that what McCain wants to do is far worse than what Obama has done. Obama kept things as they are; McCain would make things significantly worse. Should it be changed? Maybe so, but Obama simply maintained the current level of choice. I find that you’re trying to simplify things in ways that they can not be simplified.
16 skeeva // Sep 19, 2008
I appreciate your opinion (mine is no better than yours) and your willingness to talk. Thank you
I think in the case of voting, nothing is that simple. Because people are people (pretty obvious huh?) And people are complex. And, I truly am not happy with either candidate or political party (I’m more libertarian). However, we have a pretty simple choice. As you’ve stated before, freedom should not be taken away.
The greatest freedom any of us have is life. So in the grand scheme of things, if we don’t have life, then no other freedom really matters, because you are dead.
I think deep down we can all agree that a born child should not be killed. A born child should be protected and has the right to life. Obama is willing to vote to deny that freedom to a child.
I beg to disagree with you and we could go into a long argument about that abortion rights, but ‘Bush’ is far more anti abortion than McCain. There have not been mothers having back alley abortions and dying in the streets, during his 8 year term. So, to argue that you are voting for Obama because of what “might” happen and things would be “significantly worse” is not altogether intellectually honest.
Did you know that there is almost no medical reason to have a partial birth abortion. The child is practically born already, the mother’s health is not a concern.
In the end please think about the living and breathing fully born children that are being murdered because their mother does not want them. And before you make that selection on election day, think about if you want a man with executive power that does not believe wholeheartedly in the freedom of life and the intrinsic value of a human being.
If you are saying that you would like to have a president that is willing to deny this most basic and fundamental right, then there is really nothing I can say that will change your mind.
17 elf_man // Sep 19, 2008
And again, I would say that while Obama hasn’t done anything to improve abortion law, none of his stated views nor any of his actual platform indicate that he would do anything to damage it. All he has done is maintain the choice, even if it’s one that most would consider reprehensible. McCain and Palin have both indicated that they want to limit abortion as much as possible, if not repeal it entirely. I doubt they would be able to overturn Roe v Wade, but between their platform on abortion and their stated positions on other sexual ethics, I would say that, while they claim to promote life, their beliefs are verifiably anti-life. Obama may go too far on that one point, but I find him far more life-affirming overall. A partial-birth abortion may result in a direct loss of life, but the suffering caused is relatively minimal; even if others don’t like it, even if I don’t like it, I consider it a minor point relative to his other positions, and those of his opponents.
But yeah, I think we’ve probably reached an impasse here. I think your conclusion is wrong, you think mine is wrong, but we understand how we got there more or less, so we should probably leave it at that, since I feel like I’m repeating myself. Good chat!
18 skeeva // Sep 19, 2008
I would say nice chat. I just want to make one last thing clear. Anti-Life is Death. The direct loss of life is death. Murder is killing someone dead. To justify murder by saying “the suffering caused is relatively minimal” is really not very intelligent. How can murdering someone be a minimal amount of suffering? Would a martial artist murder someone because they wanted to and justify it as “Oh, I did it because the suffering is minimal”. And the suffering is not minimal to the individual that is being murdered. Yes, it is minimal to people that do not care, but so was the murder of Jews during WWII. That had relatively little impact to the US, but we still did what is right. How can the murder of infants be any different? It isn’t. We need to do what is right and not “let the status quo continue” If someone murdered a loved one of yours, you would probably feel quite different. Especially if that murder was due to the loved one being someone else’s inconvenience and was allowed to happen because a Senator voted to deny protection to that loved one.
19 GojuGirl // Sep 20, 2008
Wow - wasn’t expecting this conversation here…. back track to the topic… spirituality.
It seems to me that “spirituality” and martial arts are closely entwined. My Sensei teaches that the body, mind and spirit are like the legs on a three-legged stool. It only takes one weak leg to make the whole stool collapse.
The problem with an approach to book-banning or censorship is that it prevents the mind from developing strength through critical thinking skills. I remember reading Mein Kampf after it was banned from my high school library. (and yes, I read it BECAUSE it was banned). Did it make me a Nazi? No, quite the opposite - it made me terrified that the events leading up to Hitler’s election and the horrors of WWII could happen again in a climate of fear.
I guess since I am Canadian, I should probably stay away from the Palin debate. As a woman, however, I’m a bit concerned that it’s a bunch of men debating a women’s health issue, so forgive me for putting in my 2 cents.
Abortion is a human rights issue and a medical issue. The right of a woman to ensure the health of her body supersedes the right of a microscopic blob of cells than has a 50/50 chance of developing into a viable fetus.
As a martial artist, if you try to hurt me or rape me, I will do whatever it takes to stop you - even it that means killing you. If my body is invaded by a foreign object that directly impacts my health and life - then I will weigh the risks and benefits of all my choices and act accordingly. I’m not saying it’s a decision not to be discussed with your partner, it’s just that the health risk is borne 100% by the female. She get the final decision.
Critical thinking allows us to see from different perspectives, even if we don’t agree with the opinion.
20 Skeeva // Sep 20, 2008
Hi GojuGirl, thank you for the comments. While we can debate abortion and if it is a child and if the child itself has human rights, that was not my real point. Everyone seems to not want to talk about or ignore the main point.
Senator Obama, chose not to vote for a law that would protect a baby after it was fully born and completely out of the mother (not invading her). A fully born, living and breathing baby. He feels that even thought this baby is born and alive, if the mother does not want it, she has the right to refuse it care until it dies.
I’m not talking about aborting a “blob”, but letting a fully born and living baby not be cared for and die. And I said as a martial artist I have a responsibility to protect life, not take it.
Doesn’t anyone else feel that this is murder? Am I just crazy? And if it is murder (which I don’t think that being honest and using critical thinking, you could say anything else), How can we with good conscience elect someone who is willing to vote for the allowance to murder of a fully living and breathing child (not a blob)?
21 elf_man // Sep 20, 2008
Skeeva, that’s been my point, is that you’re simplifying this down to one very specific thing, then overgeneralizing from there. You’re presenting the entire choice as being about this one specific issue, and I’m sorry, but it isn’t. Again, McCain and Palin are ultimately worse, based on their beliefs and their actions in politics. Look at Palin’s record. As a whole, she is much, much worse as a member of government than Obama. McCain is part of the side that would prefer to prolong the current war, and make as much money off it as possible in the process; doesn’t that make him (or Bush, or anyone else who would maintain this problem) a murderer on a larger scale? Or is that no longer murder, but simply politics? Looking at their ideals, as you want to do with Obama: I say, look at their stance on abortion; they want to take away all choice, which would damage far more lives than does allowing partial-birth abortions. You aren’t crazy, you’re just hung up on one specific thing that’s blocking you from seeing what else is out there.
Goju, I agree, I can’t have the same perspective as a woman on this, although as you say, it’s a human rights issue and as such, I feel it’s certainly necessary for everyone to consider. Always good to have more input, since I hope I’m not just talking out my ass.
22 Skeeva // Sep 20, 2008
Elf Man, you are not arguing logically. You say that prolonging the war is murder. Soldiers sign up to fight in the military. As stated earlier, Bush is more anti abortion than McCain and there are no “DAMAGE” as you are trying to say will happen if McCain is president. You are avoiding one simple issue. I can live and get along with someone who has different ideals with me as long as murder is not one of them. You are making these broad generalizing statements trying to say “IT WILL BE MUCH WORSE” so we need to elect a murderer, then the fact is, you are electing a murderer.
If I walked into a hospital and murdered my one day old child because it would be an inconvenience, And then ran for president, I would hope that you would not vote for me because I agreed with you on several other issues and my opponent did not. I would hope that you would not only vote for my opponent, but prosecute me.
23 elf_man // Sep 20, 2008
Of course soldiers sign up to fight. But in this case many signed up based on lies told by Bush. Do you know how many people believed that Saddam was responsible for 9/11? And that doesn’t include soldiers who were already in the military who were sent over for the same lies. And they did it for money and political control. And guess what? McCain is part of the same neo conservative ideal, the same religious fanaticism, the same croniesm (look at his choice of Palin, for crying out loud, and her history), and the same foreign policy. What do you think he’ll do? At this point, he has little choice but to work on troop withdrawal; great, but he is nonetheless part of the same system, using the government for the same purposes. I hate to use this phrase, but look at the bigger picture.
Incidentally, as I understand it, Obama voted down that law as an attempt to defend freedom of choice. There may be people who disagree with the effects of those choices, but it simply leaves those choices up to the individuals involved. As someone who identifies Libertarian, you should understand that. And again, you may not believe this, but it is a relatively minor issue. Very few of these are done each year, compared to how many die due to any number of other political and ethical issues? It just isn’t the issue you think it is.
24 Skeeva // Sep 20, 2008
Elf,
Thank you for proving my point. It is not the same. Allowing someone to kill someone else because they are inconvenienced is downright evil and wrong. Do you agree?
25 elf_man // Sep 20, 2008
Ugh, this thing dropped my post.
As phrased, your question has only one answer: it depends on the inconvenience. Killing simply is; it is just another way to die. The reasons and intention have to be considered besides the actions to judge a killing as murder. You’re making assumptions about people who have partial birth abortions that simply can not be judged beforehand. Each one must be on a case by case basis; sure, you could make laws to regulate it, but at that point the personal choice of the people involved, and any advising parties, would be preferable.
I’m afraid you’ll read this as “murder is good”. Please believe that is not it at all, and please consider how that could be the case.
26 Skeeva // Sep 21, 2008
Elf man, I don’t know why you keep insisting I am talking about partial birth abortions.
I’m talking about a living breathing FULLY BORN child. Do you think it is evil and wrong to kill a fully born child because you do not want them? Not partial birth abortion, but a living breathing baby. Do you think that is evil and wrong?
27 Scott in SF // Sep 21, 2008
Biden and Pelosi both belong to the Catholic Church which regularly supports book banning. I can think of a few books I wouldn’t mind seeing banned myself…Mantak Chia comes to mind.
From reading the article, Mayor Palin never said anything specific about banning a book. What an overblown silly attack. Every library has a policy about removing books. The US Supreme court has said standards of obscenity are locally created. My local public Library carries gay porn because that’s what people here want to read/view!
If the Wasilla public Library was carrying Gay Porn you can bet there would have been a fight over it. And believe me, the ACLU wouldn’t touch that one with a ten foot pole (or a 10 foot three section staff, since this is a MA blog. )
28 elf_man // Sep 21, 2008
Skeeva, earlier I asked if that’s what you were talking about because I wasn’t sure, and you didn’t say otherwise, so as far as I’m aware, that’s what we’ve been discussing.
29 Skeeva // Sep 21, 2008
Sorry I wasn’t clear. No, not partial birth abortion. So, ny question stands- Do you think it is evil and wrong to kill a fully born child because you do not want them? Not partial birth abortion, but a living breathing baby. Do you think that is evil and wrong?
30 Chris // Sep 21, 2008
From the Mat-Su Valley Frontiersman:
Scott, if you visited the local massage parlor and asked a few “rhetorical questions” about sexual services, you would (in most of the USA) be guilty of solicitation. Your intentions to complete the transaction would be irrelevant.
This is clearly a case of soliciting censorship–unless you know something about these conversations that Mary Ellen Emmons did not? Can I dare to expect better, from someone who would swear to uphold our Constitutional rights?
P.S. When Mantak Chia’s books are outlawed, only outlaws will have Mantak Chia books. And those outlaws will offer high-priced and well-attended seminars to promote his methods.
31 elf_man // Sep 21, 2008
Okay, I did some research, I see what you’re referring to. Yes, that is abhorrent. But it looks like Obama voted down that bill because those actions are already illegal in Illinois as the result of a previously passed federal bill. The bill Obama voted against was redundant on that end but also added in a bunch of things that could be used to hurt abortion rights.
32 GojuGirl // Sep 22, 2008
I find it really hard to believe that any politician on any side would sponsor a bill that endorsed killing babies. This is a spin-doctor’s dream….
**********************
Senator Smith says: I am submitting a bill that makes it illegal to eat kittens.
Senator Jones says: Excellent idea! Let’s amend that bill to include a tax on air!
Senator Brown says: I will not support that bill!
Senator Smith says: Senator Brown endorses eating kittens!
**********************
Skeeva - in answer to your question, I will provide some insight on Canada’s practise. Abortion is publicly funded and provided as health care. There is no such thing as “partial-birth” abortion because the medical risk outweighs the benefit. (99% of abortions in Canada are provided before 14 weeks, when there is virtually no risk to the woman) When a baby is born, she has equal rights (as outlined in our Charter) to the mother, as soon as she takes her first breath. So an anti-baby killing law would be silly, because it’s already illegal to kill babies.
It seems to me that the scenario that you describe is sort of like saying Obama is a kitten-eater….
33 skeeva // Sep 22, 2008
Hi GojuGirl,
I do as well. That is why I will not vote for Obama. In the meantime, let me try to address your statements and those of Elf_mans. Unfortunately, when a post tries to do too much, it ends up becoming muddled and the main point can get lost. But I’ll give it a try.
1) Partial birth abortion is both legal in the US, and supported by Obama. Thank you for the support about Partial Birth abortions being not medically necessary. If a child is born completely except for the head, then there is no reason you can’t birth the head instead of pierce it with a sharp instrument and suck out its brains. If you’ve ever held a new born, the thought of it being legal to take that same baby and murder it is too despicable to even imagine. However, Obama and many others feel that this is practice should be legal and performed.
2) Elf_man did some research, but did not go far enough. He bought into the “liberal spin”. There was one amendment to the bill, Which Obama voted for, then when the bill came up to a vote, Obama voted against the bill. There were not a “bunch of things” that were added to the bill to hurt abortion rights. Obama himself first denied that he voted against the bill, When he spoke with CBN’s David Brody about a month ago.
On the senate floor on March 30, 2001 Obama was the only verbal opponent of this bill (the federal bill passed in 2002), so at this time there was not a federal law, He said (paraphrase) This bill would essentially bar abortions. Which ONE is a lie, because the bill is passed at a federal level and abortions are still legal, and even more disturbingly he is saying that a Fully Born, Living and Breathing Child should be allowed to be murdered because if they are not legally allowed to be murdered then there could be a chance (in his mind) that the right to abortion would be in jeopardy.
He actually said a lot more disturbing things, but I don’t want to make this post longer than your average college term paper.
In your example, I agree, if there were additional amendments that made the bill ridiculous, then calling Senator Smith a kitten eater is ridiculous.
However, more to the truth, we have the following scenario-
************************************
Senator Steve: I’m proposing a bill that protects new born infants so that it is illegal to kill them.
Senator Obama: We can’t do that. It could potentially harm abortion rights.
Senator Steve: There is only one amendment on the bill, that you voted for, that says that this right cannot be expanded to any member of homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive. That is the only amendment.
Senator Obama: We can’t protect living breathing children.
Senator Steve: Senator Obama supports the murder of children (Which is a true statement)
***********************************
So, we have a guy who is willing to vote to allow new born children to die. As elf_man said, this is abhorrent and I personally in good conscience cannot give executive power to a man like that.
34 elf_man // Sep 22, 2008
Yeah, I paraphrased a little too. “A bunch of” wasn’t the best way to phrase it. I’m not going to argue the exact sequence of events, because everyone reports something slightly different.
There was already a law that required a doctor to provide care if the infant survived the abortion procedure. That was in place before the federal law passed, and the different Illinois specific bills all had a rider that could potentially damage late-term abortions. Whether that’s too extreme a stance on abortion is another issue; when the bill finally passed in 2005, it did so without that amendment.
35 skeeva // Sep 22, 2008
Elf_man,
#1 I think we are being a little disingenuous, can you tell me the law that was around as you quote “before the federal law passed?” I don’t think you will be able to.
Exact sequence of events do matter.
#2 The federal bill did not pass until 2002. In 2001 Obama was the only verbal argument against the protection of “born alive” infants. His reasoning, as I’ve already stated is that we cannot protect infants that are born alive, because it “might” hurt abortion rights. Look at the bill, it is pretty clear. There was no “rider” that prohibited abortions or threatened Roe vs. Wade.
Now, the question is why would this guy vote to allow the murder of new born children. Since, there was an obvious need for protection, otherwise state and federal legislation would not have been being enacted.
And we get back to my initial question. Why would we elect someone who supports the murder of new born children. Someone who is willing to take away the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the very freedom of life that should be granted to all human beings. According to his vote, a new born child’s life is not worth sustaining if a mother does not want it.
36 elf_man // Sep 22, 2008
Okay, I’ll concede the point on the preexisting law, that one’s a bit muddled. Yes, the order of things matters, but as far as I can tell you’ve also misstated how he voted at various points. Based on him voting “present” and “no”, not voting “yes”. I’ve seen multiple slight variations on conservative articles, and other slight variations on liberal articles, and even where they agree, they disagree as to how it affects Obama.
Either way, he was voting against that bill because it had potential to harm late term abortions, relative to state law. As you have said. The issue was the section that allowed parents to sue a doctor over difficulties in a late term abortion, which could end up limiting access. When talking about “might”, well, it’s like how loose language in other bills gets them shot down. It won’t necessarily be used for those purposes, and doesn’t mean the bill itself is wrong, but we’re better off redrafting a bill that doesn’t have that ambiguity. He has said that if he were there when the federal bill was voted on, he would have voted yes for it, since it did not have the ambiguous language. Obviously, that is hindsight so it can be criticized as pandering, but it’s also fair to point out that the bill that finally went through in Illinois had removed that clause, removing the ambiguity. That seems like validation that he blocked it long enough for an appropriate version to pass. Of course, it could be spun the other way, that him leaving finally allowed it to pass, but there is the difference that the clause had been removed. Ultimately, I take it as an extreme defense of questionable forms of abortion; perhaps not the best cause, but not the championing of murder that you’re presenting it as. And again, they have since passed the bill, with no ambiguous language. Seems like it worked to me.
37 skeeva // Sep 22, 2008
elf_man,
Are you paid by Obama’s campaign? J/k. I think again, we have some spins/twists of the truth. Maybe not intentional on your part, but nevertheless the obfuscate the facts.
It is a matter of record that Obama voted yes to support the amendment to the bill and no on the actual bill. You can look that up.
Yes he voted to allow the murder of born alive infants.
You correctly point out that Obama said he would have voted for the law at a federal level, but you are not correct in the reason. Obama said he would have voted for the state law had it included a neutrality clause — similar to one added to the federal law — affirming that the bill would not impact Roe v. Wade.
The problem with Obama is that the state law DID have that clause. He either lied or misremembered. Odds are, since he was the only senator to voice a verbal opposition to this bill, he probably did not miss that wording on the bill.
Also, to make matters worse, he has lied about his vote. Why would he lie?
All in all, do I think Obama walks around murdering new born children? No, I don’t. But should we have deep reservations about electing someone who-
Votes not to protect born alive children from being murdered (and his excuse as to why he did it keeps changing and is questionably truthful at best ).
As I’ve stated before and it continues to be squashed down, the freedom to live is the greatest freedom we have. If we do not have it, other freedoms do not matter. To vote to not protect the freedom of life of new born children is evil. Just as is a vote to allow a full term child to be birthed all the way to the head, and then a sharp instrument is used to pierce the skull, and then a vacuum is inserted into the skull cavity to suck out the brain. This process is neither good, nor right.
To defend either action by saying “But if we prevent these children from being murdered, then we might harm abortion rights” is shameful and terrible.
38 Chris // Sep 22, 2008
The Protocols of the Elders of Fundamentalism
* In word and deed, we are infallibly correct.
* It is our duty to protect others from incorrect views, i.e. those which differ from our own.
* We support censorship, but for political reasons, we cannot openly endorse it.
* We therefore seek to reframe and/or devalue the meaning of the word censorship. If the term can be redefined, such that every person commits “acts of censorship” on a daily basis, then we will have established “common-sense” support for our own behavior.
* Tactic #1: confuse disagreement with censorship in the minds of the audience. Anyone who disagrees with you is censoring you. If unsuccessful, proceed to the next step.
* Tactic #2: Being up inflammatory and irrelevant topics to change the direction of an uncomfortable discussion. (Abortion, for example, is an effective red herring.) If a moderator attempts to silence you, accuse them of censorship.
* Tactic #3: (fill in the blank) _____________________
39 skeeva // Sep 24, 2008
Chris,
I believe Disagreement and dialogue are healthy and necessary. I also was not attempting to bring up a red herring as much I was trying to talk about spirituality and political beliefs. I was trying to create dialogue and discussion.
We can talk censorship. How do you define censorship. By having a definition, we can at least discuss the topic with an idea of where each of us are coming from. There may be no real disagreement, but we should clarify our definitions.
I’m speaking of the most commonly held definition- removing or suppressing books, films, or other material that is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
Is this what you are talking about as well?
40 Chris // Sep 24, 2008
skeeva, I am not calling names, just observing that these are precisely the same tactics that religious extremists and intellectual deadbeats employ.
For my purposes here, I would define censorship as that which violates the communications protections in the First Amendment, in letter or in spirit.
41 skeeva // Sep 25, 2008
Ok,
That is pretty vague in the sense that there are “interpretations” of what actually violates the communications protections based on our own individual views. So, based on your definition, I would agree that censorship is wrong and bad. However, according to your definition, there are things that “Do not violate the communications protections in the First Amendment” that should be censored or at least it would not be wrong to censor because they do not violate that right. Is that correct?
42 skeeva // Sep 25, 2008
One other note about your article, you make a glaring error in your statement “A few months later, Emmons was fired:” This is no where mentioned in the article that you link to, or anywhere else. Being a communications major with a focus on journalism, I understand that “fact checking” is one of the most important things we can do. Whether it is from the right or the left, there is usually always a spin. In this case that statement is completely factually incorrect. If it was written for a newspaper or magazine, the author would be severely reprimanded and a retraction would be printed. Just an FYI
43 Chris // Sep 25, 2008
No, that is a fundamental logical error.
And my quote is indeed a quote, from the Anchorage Daily News, which I already linked to above.
Emmons was fired. People complained. She was rehired.
Now, a spin-doctor might claim there is “no proof” that public outcry led to the librarian’s rehiring/unfiring. That is just silly, but more importantly, irrelevant to my point.
44 Skeeva // Sep 25, 2008
Hey Chris,
I understand your misunderstanding of my quote. To better explain, What I was trying to ask (and did so quite poorly, my apologies) is: Do you think there are things that should not be allowed to be put onto TV or into the Library? If so, what are they?
#2) If you want to argue about the definition of “fired” then you are again wrong. “Intention” and “Action” are two different things and as martial artists we should understand that. If you read the article, she was never fired. She did resign, but she was never fired. So, you were wrong. But, that’s not the real discussion.
As for the firing, she was
45 Chris // Sep 25, 2008
“Aristotle said that some people were only fit to be slaves. I do not contradict him. But I reject slavery because I see no men fit to be masters.” ~ C. S. Lewis
As intelligent martial artists, we should recognize that words have power. If words did not have power, then no government agent would bother to censor them.
What man is fit to be your master? And should I be having this conversation with him instead?
46 Chris // Sep 25, 2008
P.S.
This text was written by FactCheck.org. I have reason to believe they checked their facts.
Repeated “hypothetical questions” are not actually hypothetical. And “requests” for an employee’s resignation are not actually requests. You would be lucky to learn this the easy way, on a martial arts blog for example, and not when your own job hangs in the balance!
47 Skeeva // Sep 26, 2008
Chris,
I will concede the point that Emmons was fired - although she never lost her job. She resigned at a later time. I also apologize for accusing you of not checking your facts. So, let’s not belabor that point anymore.
The real question that has been asked and failed to be answered is this:
Do you think there are things that should not be allowed to be put onto TV or into the Library? If so, what are they?
48 Chris // Sep 26, 2008
I have not found the government qualified to censor information for my own good. That is my position, and the position of the founders of this country.
I do not declare myself the master, or the slave of my fellow man; and I do not endorse the craven behavior of those who willingly play these roles–but I tolerate it.
49 Skeeva // Sep 26, 2008
Why do you keep avoiding a simple question? The question was not is the govt qualified, and it was not, are you the master.
It’s really a simple question and refusing to answer it speaks volumes. So, Do you think there are things that should not be allowed to be put onto TV or into the Library? If so, what are they?
50 Chris // Sep 27, 2008
Not understanding, or pretending not to understand my answer speaks volumes. There are no simple questions, only simple people, who decontextualize their questions in the short-sighted attempt to win arguments.
You persist in using the passive voice, as if to hide the fact that acts of censorship actually require human beings on both ends of the transaction; one ceding power to, or seizing power from the other.
Fundamentalist Tactic #3: mischaracterize one’s self-interested actions as divine mandate.
Sorry, that dog won’t hunt. Not here, anyway.
Who do you personally feel qualified to censor, Skeeva? And does this master enjoy the consent of his slaves?
51 Skeeva // Sep 27, 2008
Avoidance tactic #1: Spout some esoteric garbage while avoiding a simple question.
Your fear to answer the question shows 1 of 2 things. Either, you believe that everything in print and filmed should be allowable — or — you agree with the vast majority of people including the writers of the constitution and lawmakers today, that there are some things that should not be allowed in the libraries.
I’m not asking you to be a censor, I’m not trying to act as a censor, I’m simply asking a question that you continue to avoid with a lot of hot air. The question is not decontextualized, as a matter of fact, it fits very well into the discussion of censorship. If you are afraid of an honest and open debate, then please do not answer the question.
Do you think there are things that should not be allowed to be put onto TV or into the Library?
52 skeeva // Sep 30, 2008
Synopsis:
I think we can all agree that there are things that should not be allowed in the library or on TV. Things that doctors and psychologists have deemed harmful to children. Just as in the same way, the right to freedom of speech is not protected if you are in a crowded movie theater and scream “FIRE!” or in an airport and talk about “Bombs”. There are certain things that should be censored due to safety concerns. Our host makes a critical error in saying that Palin, in asking if the librarian would be willing to censor books, is unAmerican for asking this question. Most of us Americans believe in censorship, at least for the protection of children. The host got into trouble and refused to answer my question, because he would have contradicted himself. He would have either A) said that yes there are some things that should not be in the library (thus agreeing with censorship in some form) to protect children and for safety, thus contradicting himself, or B) would have said no, everything should be allowed in the library and on TV, and at that point would have shown that he is a little out of touch with reality.
We must be careful to clarify definitions when in discussion and also when we read what people are writing. We need to analyze everything critically and be willing to discuss and allow ideas, even if they are different or opposite to ours. This will challenge us and help us grow in the long run. I thank our host for this blog and allowing the sharing and debate of ideas, even ones contrary to his. Thanks Chris.
53 Chris // Oct 1, 2008
Our esteemed commenter mistakes the scope of both his responsibility and ability, by attempting to proclaim what is best for everyone. It is surely not his decision to make. We, the citizens, do not all agree that this decision is best left in the hands of the government; or, more precisely, in the hands of self-interested individuals under government employ. The alternative, of course, is individual freedom (which does not imply freedom from repercussions).
Our distinguished commenter falls further into error, by confusing decisions on the proper contents of a small town library (the context of this discussion) with those pertaining to a “clear and present danger”. His attempt to legitimize prior restraint “for the safety of our children” is simply crass. If such a standard was applied here, his voice would not be heard.
As recently as a few weeks ago, politicians were insisting that our economy was fundamentally sound–a statement motivated by ignorance, self-interest, sheer deception, or all of the above. Now, as this government prepares to draw a $700 billion IOU upon the labor of our children and grandchildren, I can only laugh at the suggestion that we embrace its surrogate parenting.
54 Skeeva // Oct 1, 2008
I did not know you held me in such high esteem Chris. I’m honored!
Your logic or attempt to use logic is extremely flawed.
Once again, you completely avoid the question and proceed to spew another inadequate diatribe while executing an ad hominem fallacy. Your argument is not valid or correct because you disagree with me.
Then you execute a straw man fallacy by stating “politicians were insisting that our economy was fundamentally sound” and proceed to try to draw a parallel between the collapse of the economy and censorship. Sorry bud, that dog ain’t hunting here.
As for decisions on the proper contents of a small town library, that is censorship, as we both agree. Asking one if they are willing to censor books, is not a crime. As we have seen and most people agree (we don’t know about your stance because you refuse to answer the question) censorship - yes even in a small town library - is necessary to protect our children. Don’t you agree? Your answer to that question, we will probably never know ….
Since you repeatedly fail to answer the question and instead commit logical fallacies, we can only deduct that your position will not stand a logical argument. That was my point all along. You are not willing to answer a question that will clarify and lead to further discussion/understanding. Instead, you throw out logical fallacies in an attempt to defend an opinion that is extremely flawed.
55 Chris // Oct 2, 2008
Dear Mister President,
This is why they hate our freedoms. Because we avoid what they deem the most important question: not whether to oppress our fellow man, but how to best accomplish the task.
These people consider “the consent of the governed,” and related concepts as so much esoteric garbage. They crave the direction of your firm executive hand; not for themselves necessarily, but definitely on their fellow citizens, who they believe cannot be left to their own judgment.
Sir, I believe that with proper education, these folks can be relieved of their lamentable condition. I respectfully propose that, before leaving office, you approve the No Fundamentalist Left Behind Bill.
This Bill proposes that, rather than using our Army to fight religious extremists abroad, we simply parachute a few of our home-grown fundamentalists into their midst. Maybe the two groups will destroy each other by attrition? Or maybe each will be confronted with the deep hypocrisy of their condition, after experiencing firsthand the wrong end of tyranny? I don’t know, and it doesn’t matter.
Either way, this proposal will decrease our war budget dramatically. It will increase the safety of our children. As it is the best thing for our country, our new conscripts really have no right to complain.
Mister President, even you must concede that our government has bungled many important tasks. I therefore request that you appoint our most competent officials, to personally inspect each parachute prior to deployment. Is Alberto Gonzales available? Christopher Cox? Michael Brown? Any one of them could do a heckuva job.
I would love to help, but I am quite busy attending to the needs of my own children. Somebody has to accept responsibility for raising them, and I am somebody.
Yours in flaw and fallacy,
Chris
56 skeeva // Oct 3, 2008
Hi Chris,
We should call you the straw man. This is because of the way you try to defend positions. You consistently set up straw men and knock them down in an effort to prove your point.
The problem we have here is not Fundamentalism vs. Liberalism (like you are trying to push forward). I have both fundamental and liberal beliefs.
The problem here is the same problem we have in society and government today. If you watch the politicians, they will refuse to answer the question. Instead they will run off topic and try to push their agenda forward (quite a bit like our host - are you running for office any time soon?)
The problem is the lack of open minded, honest communication. The problem lies on both ends of the spectrum (so Chris you are not alone). When we as a people refuse to engage in honest and open dialogue, with an emphasis on coming to an understanding (if not agreement), then we are doing a disservice to humanity. There is no mandate to come to an agreement and I doubt highly that two people who will agree on every single thing 100% could be found.
But when we push out our ideas like they are TRUTH and then refuse to discuss the merits and problems with our ideas (oh yes Chris, even your ideas and arguments have flaws, just as mine do) and instead try to squash any discussion through logical fallacies and spouting rhetorical pseudo spiritual nonsense, we are acting much like those that we are trying to criticize and make fun of.
By refusing to communicate openly and hiding behind your command of language, you act just like the parts of government and politicians that favor the wrong type of censorship (the one that takes away rights instead of protecting rights).
In short, you are more of the problem than the solution. So, as usual I expect the next post from you to be some sort of spiritual dribble and drab about how evil everyone who does not agree with you are and how all fundamentalists should be ground up and turned into gasoline and poured into gas tanks, because they supported the war and it was all about oil.
But the real question is- Are you still afraid to discuss your position on the censorship question that I posed? Are you going to act again, like the government and politicians and avoid the question altogether?
57 Chris // Oct 3, 2008
Dress for the job you want, not the job you have, they say. So I write for the audience I want: intelligent people with an interest in martial arts. And I thank you for your continued efforts at understanding the depth of this topic. Though I do not like to repeat myself, I will explain the basis of my position one last time.
The question of what information should be suppressed, is inseparable from who should exercise that power. Inseparable. Inseparable. The fallacy is in your premise.
Do you believe that truth can be legislated? Tennessee state officials did, and the result was the Scopes Monkey Trial. Indiana did, and they nearly passed the Pi Bill. Since that time, the scope of scientific knowledge has only increased, while the requirements for holding political office have not.
On topics of mathematics, legislative committees are not qualified to censor the writings of mathematicians. On questions of philosophy, they are unqualified to censor philosophers. And so it is with every other topic known to Man.
Of course, the issue is more complex, and it does indeed intersect fundamentalism and liberty, ethics and law–but this objection is sufficient for now.
I encourage you to look up the definitions of “straw man” and “ad hominem”, so that you might apply them properly in the future. Please take your time.
58 Skeeva // Oct 4, 2008
Chris,
Your encouragment is not necessary. I know full well what the definitions are. If you think they are not applied properly then you need only look back at your posts here and elsewhere to see perfect examples. But since you do not know what they are, I will summarize them.
Ad Hominem - This is where Chris attacks the individual who argues against his truth claim rather than the argument the individual has against Chris’ truth claim. Then after making an attack against the individual, Chris, reiterates his position as if he has just supported it. A frequently used Chris tactic.
Straw Man (Chris’ specialty) - Avoiding the argument against (sound familiar?) and set up a completely different argument against and then knock that argument down, thus claiming that your argument is correct. Since you obviously don’t understand what this is (although you are quite good at it) I will give you an example -
I asked a question about if Chris thinks Everything should be allowed in the library and on TV. My argument is that there are things that should be censored and not allowed on TV or in the Library. Chris disagrees, thus the argument, but instead of addressing my question or statement, Chris sets up this straw man as follows, and I quote:
“As recently as a few weeks ago, politicians were insisting that our economy was fundamentally sound–a statement motivated by ignorance, self-interest, sheer deception, or all of the above. Now, as this government prepares to draw a $700 billion IOU upon the labor of our children and grandchildren, I can only laugh at the suggestion that we embrace its surrogate parenting.”
He is arguing that since the economy collapsed and our politicians were telling us everything is ok, he “can only laugh at the suggestion that we embrace its surrogate parenting” which means he thinks it is laughable to allow them to censor.
Thus, most people would agree that the economy is a huge problem and government is to blame, but he wants everyone to make the leap that because the government messed up the economy, they are not equipped to censor. Well, not many people with any ability to think logically would accept this straw man fallacy that he has set up.
There are many others, but as stated before, politician Chris does not want open and honest discussion. He will not answer questions and instead goes to fallacies to prove a point (which is his only option because his argument itself is fallacious). This is also why he will never address my truth claim: There are things that should be censored by not being allowed on TV or in the Library.
Chris will continue to dance around my argument, throwing out fallacies left and right, but he will never address the true question, because he has no answers.
The BoBo Carnival of Politics - September 22, 2008 | The BoBo Files // Sep 21, 2008
[…] presents Sarah Palin, Spirituality and Forbidden Knowledge posted at Martial Development, saying, “Read this today, because our Glorious Leaders might […]
Say No to McCain/Palin Carnival - October 6, 2008 - Edition 1 | Say No 2 Sarah Palin // Oct 5, 2008
[…] presents Sarah Palin, Spirituality and Forbidden Knowledge posted at ” Martial […]
Carnival of the Liberals #75 | Tangled Up in Blue Guy // Oct 8, 2008
[…] presents Sarah Palin, Spirituality and Forbidden Knowledge posted at Martial […]
Say No to McCain/Palin Carnival - October 14, 2008 - Edition 2 | Say No 2 Sarah Palin // Oct 14, 2008
[…] presents Sarah Palin, Spirituality and Forbidden Knowledge posted at Martial […]
Leave a Comment