dargscisyhp said:

---

larry culpepper said:

---

I'd say all the Bible/God stuff is coming up because religion is the direct reason why our state government is passing these new laws, and many of us nonreligious people have some serious problems with people imposing their religious views on others. I obviously have no issue with people personally being against abortion. I do have problems with said people thinking their views should be the law. Not everyone thinks that terminating a pregnancy in the early stages of pregnancy is tantamount to murder, and a lot of people take issue with the vigilante system that this new law allows.

---

I'm always curious when I hear this argument, what are religious people supposed to do when it comes to politics? If they didn't allow their religion to play a part they would essentially have two choices: don't participate or violate their conscience.

---

I think it depends on what their religious beliefs say about forcing their faith on others. If your religion does not require that you force your beliefs onto others, then there is no violation of conscience.

Hang on, these aren't example of moral frameworks. I think most people would say that a war of conquest for land and resources are generally immoral. Ultimately though geopolitical pressures are those of self-preservation in the long run so I'm not sure life, even in a more removed sense, isn't at the top. But if you're talking about human ambition and power, no, those don't trump life. I know of no modern moral code where they do. Plenty of ancient ones, though.

Criminal execution I think you have backwards. This view is not that there is some good above life, but that the chief good (life) of the criminals has been ceded through their actions. In the modern legal sense, only murder carries the death penalty. In this case, and even in older cases (such as rape) life is again the matter in question - not retribution, but the guarantee that no further lives will be lost.

Your driving one is a bad example. In the long run life expectancy is zero. That we live in order to live is hardly a case against life being the chief good in our moral framework.

Spring break in a pandemic is a question of wisdom, not morality.

I am not arguing that life is at the top of any individual's values hierarchy. Many people are selfish and put their own needs above those of others, even to the point of murder. But that's what this thread is about, isn't it?

One case you didn't make is that of castle doctrine, the right to kill someone to defend property. But even then, buried, you'll find Locke's argument that an assault on property is an assault on liberty, and ultimately life. To wit: "This makes it Lawful for a Man to Kill a Thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther then by the use of Force, so to get him in his Power, as to take away his Money, or what he pleases from him.: because using force, where he has no Right, to get me into his Power, let his pretense be what it will, I have no reason to purpose that he, who would take away my Liberty, would not when he had me in his Power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is Lawful for me to treat him, as one who has put himself into a State of War with me, I.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a State of War, and is Aggressor in it."

Quote:

---

The bodily autonomy of the woman has to take precedent over the fetus that is not life at 6 weeks

---

If the fetus is not life at 6 weeks what is it? Is it dead?

When does it "come to life"?

Quote:

---

And you keep putting life up on this high pedestal, and it's been made pretty clear that God doesn't have nearly the high opinion of life that you do.

---

The only reason humans have any idea of the sanctity and equality of all life is because we were taught so by God. On their own humans have found this concept false on its face as a matter of course. You're a moral post-turtle. You didn't get where you are on your own, and you have no idea how you got there or what to do now that you're up there.

Politics is nothing more than the (usually) nonviolent way of forcing your beliefs on others. If you want to avoid that, you should avoid laws and society altogether.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

The bodily autonomy of the woman has to take precedent over the fetus that is not life at 6 weeks

---

If the fetus is not life at 6 weeks what is it? Is it dead?

When does it "come to life"?

Quote:

---

And you keep putting life up on this high pedestal, and it's been made pretty clear that God doesn't have nearly the high opinion of life that you do.

---

The only reason humans have any idea of the sanctity and equality of all life is because we were taught so by God. On their own humans have found this concept false on its face as a matter of course. You're a moral post-turtle. You didn't get where you are on your own, and you have no idea how you got there or what to do now that you're up there.

---

It's alive in any sense that something that must have a host is 'alive'. I don't know the answer of when it 'comes to life'. That's your term, not mine....Most likely at viability which currently is held to be around 24 weeks.

Zobel said:

---

The only reason humans have any idea of the sanctity and equality of all life is because we were taught so by God. On their own humans have found this concept false on its face as a matter of course. You're a moral post-turtle. You didn't get where you are on your own, and you have no idea how you got there or what to do now that you're up there.

---

A number of animals protect their families, love their families, feed them, teach them, and mourn when someone dies from the family. Does this equate to valuing life?

What do you mean when you say that humans only know of the ideas of sanctity and equality of life because of God? Are you saying that because God is the source of all good. Or are you saying that prior to Christianity, the ideas of sanctity and equality of life did not exist in the realm of philosophical thought?

you said a fetus which is not life.

many living things require a host to survive. including infants.

Zobel said:

---

Politics is nothing more than the (usually) nonviolent way of forcing your beliefs on others. If you want to avoid that, you should avoid laws and society altogether.

---

As a Christian and as a participant in the political process, do you feel that your beliefs should be forced on everyone else? Do you believe that we should all be forced to worship your God in the manner that you worship your God?

I said sanctity and equality of all life - again, humans being the subject matter. Christians believe that all human life is sacred, full stop. And in that sense, all human life is equal, full stop. There is no pragmatic valuation of life, no economic rationale, justification based on contribution to society - no utility is involved whatsoever. Christianity teaches that human beings have intrinsic value.

Zero ancient cultures taught this. None. The most advanced pre-Christian legal system considered humans without citizenship as literal non-persons, with the same rights and moral value as tools.

Pro-choice advocates cannot escape arbitrariness in this debate. Viable vs non-viable: arbitrary. Prenatal vs postnatal: arbitrary. CS Lewis describes this as well as anyone I have seen in The Abolition of Man. To those outside the Tao, value statements and statements of ought can never be derived except by preference.

Some beliefs should be forced on others, yes. Respect for life, property, freedom are baseline requirements for people to live together in peace, and those who are unwilling to do so should be subject to consequences. In polite society the government has a near-monopoly on handling these consequences, but government is nothing more than the aggregate vector of the people it represents. Every criminal sentence handed out is us collectively forcing our belief on others.

I do not believe people should be forced to worship my God. In fact I think that violates my religion.

However, being strictly pragmatic here there's no reason a different society, with a different religion, would be objectively wrong in concluding that sharing religious practice is a requirement in order to be a participant in that society. Every ancient culture did so.

GQaggie said:

---

Pro-choice advocates cannot escape arbitrariness in this debate. Viable vs non-viable: arbitrary. Prenatal vs postnatal: arbitrary. CS Lewis describes this as well as anyone I have seen in The Abolition of Man. To those outside the Tao, value statements and statements of ought can never be derived except by preference.

---

Its not arbitrariness you're ensnared by, but coming to terms with definitions and concepts. Word mean things. At the heart of abortion debate isn't about defining murder, but defining life. The beliefs about when 'life' begins are bedrock to this. Usually this morphs into the ideas of personhood and then consciousness for the callous. This is why there is no middle ground, despite vague calls from the left to find a middle ground.

This board has a wide range of viewpoints:
-Life is one ongoing evolutionary chain that we can't discern life's beginnings. Sperm and egg are both 'alive' beforehand. Personhood begins at birth.
-Life begins at conception, and so does individual personhood.
-Life begins at the earliest date we could scientifically sustain the fetus outside the woom (24 weeks now right?)
-Life begins at birth

Defining life and when it becomes valuable enough to impose obligations on the mother is arbitrary. I contend the pro-choice side cannot offer an objective defense of why she should be obligated to care for the infant immediately post-birth but should be free from obligation prior to the birth. Any attempt to do so will appeal to an arbitrary change in value.

Outside of an objective morality (i.e. the Tao), the decision to value life at all, regardless of how one defines its inception, is itself an arbitrary decision.

Zobel said:

---

Some beliefs should be forced on others, yes. Respect for life, property, freedom are baseline requirements for people to live together in peace, and those who are unwilling to do so should be subject to consequences. In polite society the government has a near-monopoly on handling these consequences, but government is nothing more than the aggregate vector of the people it represents. Every criminal sentence handed out is us collectively forcing our belief on others.

I do not believe people should be forced to worship my God. In fact I think that violates my religion.

However, being strictly pragmatic here there's no reason a different society, with a different religion, would be objectively wrong in concluding that sharing religious practice is a requirement in order to be a participant in that society. Every ancient culture did so.

---

I feel this is consistent with what I originally said on the subject. Darg asked how a person of faith could participate in politics without forcing their beliefs. And I said "I think it depends on what their religious beliefs say about forcing their faith on others. If your religion does not require that you force your beliefs onto others, then there is no violation of conscience." Am I being overly sensitive in saying the below sounded argumentative?

Quote:

---

Politics is nothing more than the (usually) nonviolent way of forcing your beliefs on others. If you want to avoid that, you should avoid laws and society altogether.

---

Zobel said:

---

I said sanctity and equality of all life - again, humans being the subject matter. Christians believe that all human life is sacred, full stop. And in that sense, all human life is equal, full stop. There is no pragmatic valuation of life, no economic rationale, justification based on contribution to society - no utility is involved whatsoever. Christianity teaches that human beings have intrinsic value.

Zero ancient cultures taught this. None. The most advanced pre-Christian legal system considered humans without citizenship as literal non-persons, with the same rights and moral value as tools.

---

I'm a little conflicted on how to respond to this. I do recognize Christianity, really just the NT, as having contributed positively to ethics and moral philosophy. (And of course I understand that my viewing of it as positive is part of being a part of the product of the influence of that philosophy). But I think its beyond hyperbole to suggest that without Christianity we would not have concepts like human equality. I think you need only look at Christianity's own messy history on how they have treated others, foreigners, women, and slaves throughout history to understand that human value and human equality has not always been the priority you think it is. I think the world is better off with the influence of Christianity as compared to some other religions. But I think you credit human nature too little.

The case for causality is pretty clear. Before Christianity, no such beliefs in Western society. And it's not even like, you have to squint a little to see this, it's darn clear. After Christianity, they're so ingrained that to think otherwise is shocking and unthinkable.

Christianity, and Christianity alone, has ended slavery as an endemic condition among mankind. The African and Asian slave trades were a large step back after slavery was abolished in medieval Europe, but these were taking place amid the very loud, very strong protests of Christians (for example, basically all of the popes). The Venn diagram of places with ongoing institutional slavery and predominantly Christian culture basically don't overlap.

You're making a distinction between faith beliefs and non-faith beliefs that I don't think is feasible. So many things we think are non-Christian - like, for example, not leaving unwanted infants to die by exposure - are in fact directly a result of the Christianization of western culture. It's just convenient for people to take a buffet approach, where everything they agree with is just normal society or culture, and everything they don't is wacko religious stuff.

Zobel said:

---

You're making a distinction between faith beliefs and non-faith beliefs that I don't think is feasible. So many things we think are non-Christian - like, for example, not leaving unwanted infants to die by exposure - are in fact directly a result of the Christianization of western culture. It's just convenient for people to take a buffet approach, where everything they agree with is just normal society or culture, and everything they don't is wacko religious stuff.

---

What's wrong with the buffet approach? Assuming my intentions are sincere and that I'm not picking and choosing what is convenient to me?

Zobel said:

---

The case for causality is pretty clear. Before Christianity, no such beliefs in Western society. And it's not even like, you have to squint a little to see this, it's darn clear. After Christianity, they're so ingrained that to think otherwise is shocking and unthinkable.

Christianity, and Christianity alone, has ended slavery as an endemic condition among mankind. The African and Asian slave trades were a large step back after slavery was abolished in medieval Europe, but these were taking place amid the very loud, very strong protests of Christians (for example, basically all of the popes). The Venn diagram of places with ongoing institutional slavery and predominantly Christian culture basically don't overlap.

---

Wow

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/popes-and-slavery-setting-the-record-straight-1119

The popes got this one right.

Because it's arbitrary. One man's "reasonable" is the next man's "fundamentalism".

Zobel said:

---

The case for causality is pretty clear. Before Christianity, no such beliefs in Western society. And it's not even like, you have to squint a little to see this, it's darn clear. After Christianity, they're so ingrained that to think otherwise is shocking and unthinkable.

Christianity, and Christianity alone, has ended slavery as an endemic condition among mankind. The African and Asian slave trades were a large step back after slavery was abolished in medieval Europe, but these were taking place amid the very loud, very strong protests of Christians (for example, basically all of the popes). The Venn diagram of places with ongoing institutional slavery and predominantly Christian culture basically don't overlap.

---

First off, you're ignoring the centuries of Roman civilization that were not Christian. Those had a major impact on the structure and values of European society.

As for slavery, sorry, but that's BS. Throughout the middle ages kingdoms like Naples, Sicily, Genoa, Florence, and especially Venice had large markets for slaves. A papal bull in 1452 allowed slavery for Muslim and pagan prisoners. Later an allowance was made for releasing those that converted to Christianity, but the original bull was left in place. Not coincidentally, the question about whether a Christian could own another Christian was a lingering question through the 17th century. Martin Luther thought it was possible and most of the English colonies wrote permission for it into their laws. Once Spain conquered Central America, the Pope did virtually nothing. He issued a bull in 1537 that condemned enslavement of the Indians (and just the Indians) and then abrogated it in 1538 as a favor to Charles V. Even staunch advocates of Native Americans like de las Casas supported growing African slavery as a labor source. Despite not maintaining formal slavery, the Indians kept at the missions suffered from horrid mistreatment, malnutrition, and death, which was dismissed as "saving their souls."

Rome is your example of universal human Intrinsic value? Rome?

Zobel said:

---

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/popes-and-slavery-setting-the-record-straight-1119

The popes got this one right.

---

It seems to me that the popes fell into varying degrees of what we are considering right. And what good did it do? Did it stop European and American slave trade.? Did it stop Western Colonialism in African and SE Asia? In all of these cases, the popes encouraged colonialism, subjugation, and slavery for all sorts of reasons - often times for conversion. And it worked in a lot of cases. It only took the lives of 10 million Congolese people and 50 years of every form of subjugation, but Congo is now one of the most Catholic countries in the world. Mission Accomplished!

Most of history is bloody and brutal. To look at Christian influence in these areas during this time and conclude something is different and unique and morally special is insane to me. When the Christian West had 'true' power to do as they pleased, they raped and pillaged with the best of them.

Zobel said:

---

Did it stop it? Ultimately, yes.

I think there's a bit of confusion here. Christianity teaches ideals. Christians live up to these ideals in varying degrees - including normal people like me (actively failing), Christian kings and emperors, and pastors, priests, and popes. But all moral or ethical systems suffer from this same defect because they're all enacted by fallible humans. The way to evaluate them is on the content of what they say, and in secondary the efficacy of the practice (clearly a philosophical system which does nothing to improve its adherents even to its own goals is futile).

Slavery is the baseline condition for human beings. Read that sentence two or three times and then look at what you said. Slavery is not an exceptional condition, it is normal for human beings. Societies or religions which have outlawed, fought against, reasoned against slavery are "different, and unique, and morally special."

You might contrast the Christian attitudes toward slavery with that of other religious/moral/philosophical systems. For example, Romans viewed slavery and subjugation of others as a good thing. Caesar boasted of killing a million Gauls and enslaving a million more...as a political slogan. Vote for me!

And since we're talking about that, societies or religions which have advocated to protect the unborn and the infants - as infant exposure is also normal for humans in history - are similarly different, unique, and morally special.

You are free to disagree with this, but it seems to me a matter of historical inquiry, not opinion.

---

To the first line - That sounds like lighting someone's house on fire and killing half of a family before putting the fire out and then asking for gratitude from the other half of the family that you saved.

I am inclined to let this side bar end, if you are. I can appreciate Christianity's additions to moral philosophy, but I think you over sell its improbability.

It's more like - people are everywhere and always lighting each others houses on fire, a group says you shouldn't do that, and after a couple hundred years and for about a thousand years people generally stop lighting each other's houses on fire - but only in the places where that group exists. Everywhere else in the world, house fires, all the time. Then those people encounter new people, and start lighting their houses on fire. The certain group says, he guys, you shouldn't light their houses on fire either. After a couple hundred years, they stop lighting those people's houses on fire - but again, only in the places where that group is. Everywhere else, still house fires.

You're blaming firefighters for fire, because there are fires sometimes in places where firefighters are.

And sure, let it end.

Zobel said:

---

Rome is your example of universal human Intrinsic value? Rome?

---

I'm interested in what you ignored. Because it goes against your entire premise.

And yes, Roman notions of rights and the relationship between the citizen and the government were critical in the development of Europe.

Your claims were addressed in a previous link.

I'll put the relevant portions here.
Eugene IV: Sicut Dudum, 1435

Quote:

---

They have deprived the natives of their property or turned it to their own use, and have subjected some of the inhabitants of said islands to perpetual slavery (<subdiderunt perpetuae servituti>), sold them to other persons and committed other various illicit and evil deeds against them.... Therefore We .... exhort, through the sprinkling of the Blood of Jesus Christ shed for their sins, one and all, temporal princes, lords, captains, armed men, barons, soldiers, nobles, communities and all others of every kind among the Christian faithful of whatever state, grade or condition, that they themselves desist from the aforementioned deeds, cause those subject to them to desist from them, and restrain them rigorously. And no less do We order and command all and each of the faithful of each sex that, within the space of fifteen days of the publication of these letters in the place where they live, that they restore to their pristine liberty all and each person of either sex who were once residents of said Canary Islands ... who have been made subject to slavery (<servituti subicere>). These people are to be totally and perpetually free and are to be let go without the exaction or reception of any money.

---

Paul III: Sublimis Deus, 1537 (emphasis mine)

Quote:

---

And since mankind, according to the witness of Sacred Scripture, was created for eternal life and happiness, and since no one is able to attain this eternal life and happiness except through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, it is necessary to confess that man is of such a nature and condition that he is capable to receive faith in Christ and that everyone who possesses human nature is apt for receiving such faith . . . Therefore the Truth Himself Who can neither deceive nor be deceived, when He destined the preachers of the faith to the office of preaching, is known to have said: 'Going, make disciples of all nations.' 'All,' he said, without any exception, since all are capable of the discipline of the faith."
...
Seeing this and envying it, the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking the Catholic Faith. And they reduce them to slavery (<Et eos in servitutem redigunt>), treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals.
...
Therefore, We, . . . noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men and are not only capable of the Christian faith, but, as has been made known to us, promptly hasten to the faith' and wishing to provide suitable remedies for them, by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples--even though they are outside the faith--who shall hereafter come to the knowledge of Christians have not been deprived or should not be deprived of their liberty or of their possessions. Rather they are to be able to use and enjoy this liberty and this ownership of property freely and licitly, and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void. These same Indians and other peoples are to be invited to the said faith in Christ by preaching and the example of a good life.

---

Other papal documents that built on this were those of Gregory XIV in 1591, Urban VIII in Commissum Nobis in 1639, Innocent XI in 1686, Benedict XIV Immensa Pastorum in 1741, and Pius VII at the congress of Vienna in 1815 where he worked to have the victors over Napoleon outlaw slavery.

Followed by Gregory XVI In Supremo, 1839

Quote:

---

In the process of time, the fog of pagan superstition being more completely dissipated and the manners of barbarous people having been softened, thanks to Faith operating by Charity, it at last comes about that, since several centuries, there are no more slaves in the greater number of Christian nations. But - We say with profound sorrow - there were to be found afterwards among the Faithful men who, shamefully blinded by the desire of sordid gain, in lonely and distant countries, did not hesitate to reduce to slavery Indians, negroes and other wretched peoples, or else, by instituting or developing the trade in those who had been made slaves by others, to favour their unworthy practice. Certainly many Roman Pontiffs of glorious memory, Our Predecessors, did not fail, according to the duties of their charge, to blame severely this way of acting as dangerous for the spiritual welfare of those engaged in the traffic and a shame to the Christian name; they foresaw that as a result of this, the infidel peoples would be more and more strengthened in their hatred of the true Religion

[W]e have judged that it belonged to Our pastoral solicitude to exert Ourselves to turn away the Faithful from the inhuman slave trade in Negroes and all other men. [...] The slave trade, although it has been somewhat diminished, is still carried on by numerous Christians. Therefore, desiring to remove such a shame from all the Christian nations, having fully reflected over the whole question and having taken the advice of many of Our Venerable Brothers the Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, and walking in the footsteps of Our Predecessors, We warn and adjure earnestly in the Lord faithful Christians of every condition that no one in the future dare to vex anyone, despoil him of his possessions, reduce to servitude, or lend aid and favour to those who give themselves up to these practices, or exercise that inhuman traffic by which the Blacks, as if they were not men but rather animals, having been brought into servitude, in no matter what way, are, without any distinction, in contempt of the rights of justice and humanity, bought, sold, and devoted sometimes to the hardest labour. Further, in the hope of gain, propositions of purchase being made to the first owners of the Blacks, dissensions and almost perpetual conflicts are aroused in these regions.

We reprove, then, by virtue of Our Apostolic Authority, all the practices abovementioned as absolutely unworthy of the Christian name. By the same Authority We prohibit and strictly forbid any Ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this traffic in Blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse, or from publishing or teaching in any manner whatsoever, in public or privately, opinions contrary to what We have set forth in this Apostolic Letter

---

As for this...

Quote:

---

And yes, Roman notions of rights and the relationship between the citizen and the government were critical in the development of Europe.

---

This is completely irrelevant. The Roman Pater Familias had almost complete control over all aspects of life of his family, including deeming a newborn to be unfit and therefore to be killed by exposure. The Romans recognized no intrinsic human worth, and judged non-citizens as non-persons, with zero legal rights, equivalent to tools. Non-citizens could not even legally marry. Slaves were things (res), a possession (mancipium) and a living object (res mortales). Their offspring were objects owned by their master, they could not marry but only be in contubernium. Roman politicians bragged about subjugation, killing, and enslavement of other peoples - indeed this increased their dignitas.

Your link cherry-picked and ignored the reality. The Papacy abrogated aspects of their previous bulls and functionally did nothing to punish or prevent slavery.

Quote:

---

The Romans recognized no intrinsic human worth, and judged non-citizens as non-persons, with zero legal rights, equivalent to tools. Non-citizens could not even legally marry. Slaves were things (res), a possession (mancipium) and a living object (res mortales). Their offspring were objects owned by their master, they could not marry but only be in contubernium. Roman politicians bragged about subjugation, killing, and enslavement of other peoples - indeed this increased their dignitas.

---

How was that different from Christian Europe after Columbus?

Quote:

---

Your link cherry-picked and ignored the reality. The Papacy abrogated aspects of their previous bulls and functionally did nothing to punish or prevent slavery.

---

Facts not in evidence. I gave you consistent official documented positions. You give anecdotes, then accuse me of cherry picking.

Quote:

---

How was that different from Christian Europe after Columbus?

---

At this point it seems like you're actually not reading what's being discussed.

As noted multiple times on this thread there was slavery in Europe. Then there wasn't. Then there was again. And then there wasn't again. I'll leave it to you to figure out what caused those changes.

Feel free to have the last word.