I'm not letting ADD completely get in the way of things around here. I'm trying to keep my hair on and vindicate my one overarching New Year's Resolution: Routine and Regularity Replace Risk
( Read more... )
You do realize that atheism and agnosticism are at least recognized as "religious preferences" with their own particular symbols for military graves.
In point of fact they are indeed belief systems just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism or Jainism are more belief systems than religions per se. Yet we tend to think of these as religions. One might even make an argument that secularism is not just a political statement but carries at its core a set of beliefs that would make it difficult to differentiate it from a "religion" of sorts. In fact almost any set of political beliefs has many of the aspects of religions and as is often the case the line between political and religious belief sets is often blurry and indistinct.
You and I disagree on abortion, a difference I can live with it. My own position is that we cannot know at this time where truth lies here. Whether your position or mine is the moral high ground. My own solution is to advocate leaving the decision to abort a pregnancy or not to the individual rather than the state and leave the individual to seek for themselves to answer the question of the rightness or wrongness of this question and to hold themselves answerable, But, that tends to upset legalists who feel that individuals lack the "moral compass" or capacity to take on these decisions for themselves. Yet ultimately, this is all there really is, for laws and legalism does not stop people. People can stop people and the first line that this must occur is at the individual level. One must look at each question and weigh the relative merits/benefits and consequences and decide for oneself whether the merits/benefits outweigh the consequences. Belief systems aid in this decision making by providing a framework that is more or less restrictive to reduce the stress of these decisions. But that's just my opinion and belief set. :-)
You do realize that atheism and agnosticism are at least recognized as "religious preferences" with their own particular symbols for military graves.
I didn't know that, but I did know federal courts went very far when applying the statutory or regulatory definition of "religion" in the conscientous objection exception to the selective service law during the Vietnam war -- probably farther than I would, and I'm pretty open to these things. They were a good example of claims many would have scoffed at (and the military did -- understandably, BTW), but the body of law that resulted is very helpful even for constitutional claims where the definition is more rigorous.
In point of fact they are indeed belief systems just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism or Jainism are more belief systems than religions per se.
Agreed -- And I think you are right to start by analogizing to these other belief systems, but if these were just "belief systems" as opposed to "religions" that would be one of the strongest arguments for not including atheism or agnosticism in the "religion" group. I think those are religions, however, and I'll be candid that I'm not sure I have a good reason for it. Buddhists don't exactly worship the Buddha, do they (you are revealing my ignorance -- I guess reading Siddhartha to impress that guy did no good)? On the other hand, when did someone say a "religion" was about "worshipping someone?" Merriam-Webster Online says:
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I think those have to be taken very carefully in context, but they do not mean "religion" = "western theism" by any stretch.
The Supreme Court in the military cases thought that under those regs "belief systems" counted or that only some subset of "belief systems" did not count. But federal courts have repeatedly held "secular humanism" should not count. My lawyer's toolbox tells me to be narrow here -- "if the Framers had wanted generalized claims of conscience to be protected, they would have said so instead of using the word 'religion.'" My personal view is that they should count, and I have little doubt that the Supreme Court, worried about minority groups, would feel the same.
The bottom line is that if Buddhism, etc., are the equivalent of agnosticism and atheism, then the latter two should count as religions. My beef is that Buddhism is about some interface with the transcendent, but atheism denies the transcendent and agnosticism does not care. The interface is what matters, so they aren't really the same. This is not to cast aspersions: I may die and nothing happen, so the atheists may be right. I'm just saying I have a hard time philosophically with this. At some point, if everything's a religion, nothing is. On the other hand, belief systems that do little more than say "I don't believe" are oppressing others on civil issues without being held to the standards to which they hold those they oppress. I find the temptation strong to turn that around, though I’m wary of the cost of doing so later.
I think those are religions, however, and I'll be candid that I'm not sure I have a good reason for it. Buddhists don't exactly worship the Buddha, do they (you are revealing my ignorance -- I guess reading Siddhartha to impress that guy did no good)? On the other hand, when did someone say a "religion" was about "worshipping someone?"
Apparently your reading to impress was correct. Although Buddha is venerated (sometimes bordering upon worship) he is not worshipped as a deity but venerated as would be a saint in your own professed religion where such veneration sometimes can border upon worship.
My beef is that Buddhism is about some interface with the transcendent, but atheism denies the transcendent and agnosticism does not care.
An interesting point however Judaism is without doubt considered by the government to be a religion in every aspect and yet, some sects of Judaism do not believe in a transcendance but rather that life continues in memory and in the passing on of knowledge, good works and influencing others to do the same. Other sects, in a manner similar to agnosticism do not care. Which tends to support the idea that agnosticism and atheism are indeed religious beliefs one that denies a supreme being and the other that neither denies nor supports one.
I'm going to answer the abortion part of your comment in a full post, because you got me thinking about this more globally, and some of what I think is not directed at you and some has to do with things that have been coming up over and over.
I turn to a couple of little substantive points you raise that I am sorry to deal with here, but think should be mentioned. First, I understand the point about there always being some abortions. There will always be murder, but we have not legalized it. We have not even legalized a wide range of drug possession, use and sale. The point is that the criminal law does act as a deterrent to some degree. It is also a statement of society's values. "Statecraft as soulcraft," George Will called it. The question is whether we think the deterrent is needed or appropriate. In this case, one thing to consider is that we feel pretty good about the accuracy of abortion rates; even accepting the highest estimates from pre-1970, incidence has exploded since then.
Second, I know of no "legalists" who believe women are incapable of making the abortion decision for themselves and I would be in their faces about it if they said so in my hearing. The academy would certainly say overwhelmingly otherwise. Most activists on both sides think otherwise. If anything, abortion is primarily a middle and middle-class right since it's not paid for by Medicaid, suggesting at least some correlation between intellectual capabilities and "choosing" abortion, though many other factors would drive those variables.
This does not mean women in crisis may not need a lot of help, but that is not because they are women or incapable. Announcements of pregnancies can result in getting kicked out of the house by abusive husbands or boyfriends; teenagers may be afraid to tell parents or whatever; single women on their own may be afraid about what will happen at work or if they have other medical issues, but while those issues can seem insolvable, some of them can be temporary -- dealt with even in days. Giving them time to marshal their own resources and then via individual and state resources providing the rest is really important whatever they ultimately decide.
The thing that makes me rage is learning this term when I reread Planned Parenthood v. Casey again for the first time after law school is that only in the early 1990s did it become permissible for states to pass laws requiring counseling prior to an abortion about the age of the fetus and what would happen to the child. I understand how sensitive those kinds of laws can be, because they are seeking to persuade the woman not to go through with the procedure. There are two sets of reasons, though: both to protect and honor the potential life of the child and to protect her own mental health from post-abortion trauma. I get very frustrated when I read some pro-choice work and "the cause" seems more important than "the woman" when choices have to be made. To be honest, though, I see why pro-choice activists are cautious: they don't think the trauma is real and they have a lot to protect. So yes, I get it. To some degree it is why groups that have been warring so long have a terrible time coming to a table -- the Northern Irish leap to mine. What can't happen is for disconnect to continue forever, and to the extent that people of goodwill who don't have a dog in the fight can get educated and make a contribution to a healthier policy arena, I welcome it.
There will always be murder, but we have not legalized it.
Oddly enough we do have several forms of state sanctioned murder. Although we try to draw subtle differences in defining them, in hard cold truth they are the willful termination of an individual's existence. The first such example of this is capital punishment wherein the State for strictly defined reasons and in an institutionalized manner intentionally, willfully, with aforethought deliberately, openly and outrageously ends a person's life. Another is assasination which has been approved of as a means of political change by many States including the US at various points in time. This is murder on a retail level. Last but not least, we have war where murder occurs on a wholesale basis although again under strictly defined circumstances although anyone who has ever been in combat will tell you that the differences are a bit like arguing the number of angels that can dance upon the head of a pin. The State (Nation cultural/political/economic grouping) can and does indeed sanction murder under certain circumstances and indeed does codify and legalize it (e.g., FM 27-10 Laws of Land Warfare). I see no difference between legalizing capital punishment, war, assasination and abortion or euthanasia by the State. Are these good policies? I have my opinions which are moot to the question at hand.
Oddly enough my first wife wrestled with the issue of abortion in the case of our son. He was conceived out of wedlock and we were both minors (although my military ID said otherwise). She was kicked out of her parent's home, destitute, but too proud to accept money from a "Yankee, Imperialist, running dog lackey of the gub'mint who was also a baby killing war mongering male chauvinist pig (namely me). She told me much later about that inner debate and that is what it was. She decided that she would carry the fetus to term. But it could easily have been decided the other way, which she freely acknowledged and talked to other under-aged mothers to be in similar circumstances (ok maybe without the baby murdering pig)throughout her brief lifetime. It was from these many frank discussions that my own position on the issue has come into being. It isn't as simple and clear cut a thing when you have to weigh all of the circumstances pro and con to having an abortion. Frankly I think the current restrictions on Federal funding may be too stringent and that all citizens should have equal rights to making this very complex and far reaching decision for themselves. Regarding both the pro-choice and anti-abortion camps, each side seems more interested in their "cassius belli" than in the life of the woman and the fetus or their circumstances. I was and still am opposed to legally mandated "counseling" for that reason because all too often such mandates are abused by either or both sides to propagandize their cause and leave out the consideration of the individual. I much prefer the kinds of informal activities that my late first wife engaged in through, in this case, Planned Parenthood where she would discuss her own circumstances and decisions and the process and considerations along with other women. It's not "professional" counseling but IMHO, it is better in that it is a heart, soul and mind engaging process for the person making the decision and more about her than about anyone else's agenda.
As to the "legalists" in question, if you'd like I can give you the names of several attorneys involved on both sides of the question (who as I interpret you, overlook the woman and see only the "issue")some of these attorneys are also legislators and then there are legislators who aren't attorneys but hold a legalist view of the world.
In point of fact they are indeed belief systems just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism or Jainism are more belief systems than religions per se.
Yet we tend to think of these as religions. One might even make an argument that secularism is not just a political statement but carries at its core a set of beliefs that would make it difficult to differentiate it from a "religion" of sorts. In fact almost any set of political beliefs has many of the aspects of religions and as is often the case the line between political and religious belief sets is often blurry and indistinct.
You and I disagree on abortion, a difference I can live with it. My own position is that we cannot know at this time where truth lies here. Whether your position or mine is the moral high ground. My own solution is to advocate leaving the decision to abort a pregnancy or not to the individual rather than the state and leave the individual to seek for themselves to answer the question of the rightness or wrongness of this question and to hold themselves answerable, But, that tends to upset legalists who feel that individuals lack the "moral compass" or capacity to take on these decisions for themselves. Yet ultimately, this is all there really is, for laws and legalism does not stop people. People can stop people and the first line that this must occur is at the individual level. One must look at each question and weigh the relative merits/benefits and consequences and decide for oneself whether the merits/benefits outweigh the consequences. Belief systems aid in this decision making by providing a framework that is more or less restrictive to reduce the stress of these decisions. But that's just my opinion and belief set. :-)
Reply
I didn't know that, but I did know federal courts went very far when applying the statutory or regulatory definition of "religion" in the conscientous objection exception to the selective service law during the Vietnam war -- probably farther than I would, and I'm pretty open to these things. They were a good example of claims many would have scoffed at (and the military did -- understandably, BTW), but the body of law that resulted is very helpful even for constitutional claims where the definition is more rigorous.
In point of fact they are indeed belief systems just as Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism or Jainism are more belief systems than religions per se.
Agreed -- And I think you are right to start by analogizing to these other belief systems, but if these were just "belief systems" as opposed to "religions" that would be one of the strongest arguments for not including atheism or agnosticism in the "religion" group. I think those are religions, however, and I'll be candid that I'm not sure I have a good reason for it. Buddhists don't exactly worship the Buddha, do they (you are revealing my ignorance -- I guess reading Siddhartha to impress that guy did no good)? On the other hand, when did someone say a "religion" was about "worshipping someone?" Merriam-Webster Online says:
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
I think those have to be taken very carefully in context, but they do not mean "religion" = "western theism" by any stretch.
The Supreme Court in the military cases thought that under those regs "belief systems" counted or that only some subset of "belief systems" did not count. But federal courts have repeatedly held "secular humanism" should not count. My lawyer's toolbox tells me to be narrow here -- "if the Framers had wanted generalized claims of conscience to be protected, they would have said so instead of using the word 'religion.'" My personal view is that they should count, and I have little doubt that the Supreme Court, worried about minority groups, would feel the same.
The bottom line is that if Buddhism, etc., are the equivalent of agnosticism and atheism, then the latter two should count as religions. My beef is that Buddhism is about some interface with the transcendent, but atheism denies the transcendent and agnosticism does not care. The interface is what matters, so they aren't really the same. This is not to cast aspersions: I may die and nothing happen, so the atheists may be right. I'm just saying I have a hard time philosophically with this. At some point, if everything's a religion, nothing is. On the other hand, belief systems that do little more than say "I don't believe" are oppressing others on civil issues without being held to the standards to which they hold those they oppress. I find the temptation strong to turn that around, though I’m wary of the cost of doing so later.
Reply
Apparently your reading to impress was correct. Although Buddha is venerated (sometimes bordering upon worship) he is not worshipped as a deity but venerated as would be a saint in your own professed religion where such veneration sometimes can border upon worship.
My beef is that Buddhism is about some interface with the transcendent, but atheism denies the transcendent and agnosticism does not care.
An interesting point however Judaism is without doubt considered by the government to be a religion in every aspect and yet, some sects of Judaism do not believe in a transcendance but rather that life continues in memory and in the passing on of knowledge, good works and influencing others to do the same. Other sects, in a manner similar to agnosticism do not care. Which tends to support the idea that agnosticism and atheism are indeed religious beliefs one that denies a supreme being and the other that neither denies nor supports one.
Reply
Reply
Second, I know of no "legalists" who believe women are incapable of making the abortion decision for themselves and I would be in their faces about it if they said so in my hearing. The academy would certainly say overwhelmingly otherwise. Most activists on both sides think otherwise. If anything, abortion is primarily a middle and middle-class right since it's not paid for by Medicaid, suggesting at least some correlation between intellectual capabilities and "choosing" abortion, though many other factors would drive those variables.
This does not mean women in crisis may not need a lot of help, but that is not because they are women or incapable. Announcements of pregnancies can result in getting kicked out of the house by abusive husbands or boyfriends; teenagers may be afraid to tell parents or whatever; single women on their own may be afraid about what will happen at work or if they have other medical issues, but while those issues can seem insolvable, some of them can be temporary -- dealt with even in days. Giving them time to marshal their own resources and then via individual and state resources providing the rest is really important whatever they ultimately decide.
The thing that makes me rage is learning this term when I reread Planned Parenthood v. Casey again for the first time after law school is that only in the early 1990s did it become permissible for states to pass laws requiring counseling prior to an abortion about the age of the fetus and what would happen to the child. I understand how sensitive those kinds of laws can be, because they are seeking to persuade the woman not to go through with the procedure. There are two sets of reasons, though: both to protect and honor the potential life of the child and to protect her own mental health from post-abortion trauma. I get very frustrated when I read some pro-choice work and "the cause" seems more important than "the woman" when choices have to be made. To be honest, though, I see why pro-choice activists are cautious: they don't think the trauma is real and they have a lot to protect. So yes, I get it. To some degree it is why groups that have been warring so long have a terrible time coming to a table -- the Northern Irish leap to mine. What can't happen is for disconnect to continue forever, and to the extent that people of goodwill who don't have a dog in the fight can get educated and make a contribution to a healthier policy arena, I welcome it.
Reply
Oddly enough we do have several forms of state sanctioned murder. Although we try to draw subtle differences in defining them, in hard cold truth they are the willful termination of an individual's existence. The first such example of this is capital punishment wherein the State for strictly defined reasons and in an institutionalized manner intentionally, willfully, with aforethought deliberately, openly and outrageously ends a person's life. Another is assasination which has been approved of as a means of political change by many States including the US at various points in time. This is murder on a retail level. Last but not least, we have war where murder occurs on a wholesale basis although again under strictly defined circumstances although anyone who has ever been in combat will tell you that the differences are a bit like arguing the number of angels that can dance upon the head of a pin. The State (Nation cultural/political/economic grouping) can and does indeed sanction murder under certain circumstances and indeed does codify and legalize it (e.g., FM 27-10 Laws of Land Warfare). I see no difference between legalizing capital punishment, war, assasination and abortion or euthanasia by the State. Are these good policies? I have my opinions which are moot to the question at hand.
Oddly enough my first wife wrestled with the issue of abortion in the case of our son. He was conceived out of wedlock and we were both minors (although my military ID said otherwise). She was kicked out of her parent's home, destitute, but too proud to accept money from a "Yankee, Imperialist, running dog lackey of the gub'mint who was also a baby killing war mongering male chauvinist pig (namely me). She told me much later about that inner debate and that is what it was. She decided that she would carry the fetus to term. But it could easily have been decided the other way, which she freely acknowledged and talked to other under-aged mothers to be in similar circumstances (ok maybe without the baby murdering pig)throughout her brief lifetime. It was from these many frank discussions that my own position on the issue has come into being. It isn't as simple and clear cut a thing when you have to weigh all of the circumstances pro and con to having an abortion. Frankly I think the current restrictions on Federal funding may be too stringent and that all citizens should have equal rights to making this very complex and far reaching decision for themselves. Regarding both the pro-choice and anti-abortion camps, each side seems more interested in their "cassius belli" than in the life of the woman and the fetus or their circumstances. I was and still am opposed to legally mandated "counseling" for that reason because all too often such mandates are abused by either or both sides to propagandize their cause and leave out the consideration of the individual. I much prefer the kinds of informal activities that my late first wife engaged in through, in this case, Planned Parenthood where she would discuss her own circumstances and decisions and the process and considerations along with other women. It's not "professional" counseling but IMHO, it is better in that it is a heart, soul and mind engaging process for the person making the decision and more about her than about anyone else's agenda.
As to the "legalists" in question, if you'd like I can give you the names of several attorneys involved on both sides of the question (who as I interpret you, overlook the woman and see only the "issue")some of these attorneys are also legislators and then there are legislators who aren't attorneys but hold a legalist view of the world.
Reply
Leave a comment