Politics without God - Latest Comments

Re: "Pro-life" Atheist Arguments Against Abortion are Fallacious

Timethinker — Tue, 22 May 2012 00:06:41 -0000

Well, people, how do we succumb to proclaiming ourselves as being "pro-death," when we are the very definition of "life." Seems, paradoxical but is, unfortunately, reality. Age Gap Complex is what develops here-- adults tend to falsely judge younger individuals, whereas the young tend to falsely judge older individuals. Why does this happen? Because, people from both age groups have lost the ability to relate to another and clearly understand. So, what if it is the same with abortion? What if we all, as we grow older, forget that we exist through birth and were once one of the unborn? So, remember this, the unborn are what you were and you are what the unborn will be; so, stop alienating people of all ages, old, middle, young and unborn, and "understand the level ground we all must stand on if we are all to stay on."

Re: "Pro-life" Atheist Arguments Against Abortion are Fallacious

Timethinker — Mon, 21 May 2012 23:57:36 -0000

I suggest you focus on points that you can concoct from your own REASON and cease simply borrowing the opinionated REASONING of other persons, such as the apparently acclaimed Ayn Rand.

Re: How Not To Argue Against Environmentalists

Akhilesh Mishra — Wed, 18 Apr 2012 16:28:27 -0000

If people forming important committee are going to be illustrative treating earth as a 6000 year old planet made in 6 days, no wonder they can disregard other scientific facts also which do not serve their purpose. There is a connection in such an attitude. You selectively choose which scientific facts makes sense and where to insert religious fancies, you are not being true to either science or your fancies. There lies the origin of manipulation whether done purposefully or not. The problem lies within us also that we promote such people to decision making position. Astronomical data has made it clear that earth is 4.5 billion years old. It would not conform to any religion. But just because of that, you cannot say that the information is false. Because after all laser surgeries are based upon the same principles used for measuring back ground noises from our universe from which we gathered data about its age. Or if you do, then it is hypocrisy.

Re: Video: How an Atheist Should Respond to Offers of Prayers

Alyscodray — Sat, 17 Mar 2012 01:19:04 -0000

Thank you for this...! Usually I just thank them for thinking of me, but if they are persistant, I might add 'if it helps you feel better, then I'm happy for you

btw, you are the first Randian I have come across that is atheist and pro-choice. Why aren't there more??? Refusal of 'libertarians' to accept these two issues as part and parcel of objectivism is .... confusing to me. To say the least.

Stay sane :-)

Re: Newt's Nutty Abortion Stance

Cadman10 — Tue, 21 Feb 2012 23:55:48 -0000

Hi Newtiness the closest thing we've got to a I-ya-told-ya.

Re: My Body, My Choice

Gil — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 20:18:53 -0000

"That person, inside you, deserves the chance to make their own decisions." Sarah that "person "inside has no right or ability to make its own "decision" If the woman carrying that POTENTIAL person can be chained to a chair and forced to breed like a brood mare then that child is better of not being born into such a world anyway.

Re: Rights Are Inalienable But Forfeitable

Jennifer Snow — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 01:10:01 -0000

If you accept the zygote as a person, the zygote is inherently violating the rights of the mother who doesn't want it by taking up unwanted occupation of her uterus. Treating a zygote as a person creates an inherent contradiction--two sets of rights that are in conflict.

Rights cannot conflict in this way and still be logically defensible. The only solution is that either the zygote (which cannot yet carry out any of the actions that lead to the ethical necessity OF rights) or the mother, who CAN, has no rights. It is utterly irrational to drop the context in which the question of rights actually arises in order to take away the mother's rights in favor of the zygote. This is morally identical to evicting someone from his house because, say, he left the door unlocked and a squatter got inside. People who want to grant rights to zygotes always forget that this means TAKING AWAY the rights of preexisting individuals.

That being said, I'd make one comment on this article:

Rights can be *forfeited*, but not WAIVED. It is not appropriate to legally allow people to sign a waiver and fight to the death, for instance. Or for people to sell themselves into slavery. In addition, one does not forfeit ALL rights when one acts in a manner in which one properly forfeits SOME rights.

Re: My Body, My Choice

Barbara Lamar — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:05:17 -0000

Thank you for this article, Dr. Hsieh. You make excellent points on the danger of basing federal and state laws on Christian doctrine. Carried to its logical conclusion, it would be comparable to Sharia.

Re: My Body, My Choice

Diana Hsieh — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:40:14 -0000

See "The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties" by Ari Armstrong and me: http://www.theobjectivestandar...

Re: My Body, My Choice

Sarah B — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:38:25 -0000

I totally agree. Tattoos, piercings, sex change, make up, etc are all your decision and the government should not interfere with those rights. The issue comes, however, when a person loses the right to control their own body. You can control yours, but you can't control another's You can decide to have sex, but you cannot decide to kill another person because you had sex. Life is *always* (excepting genetic messups which cause a miscarriage) viable inside the womb. The human heart *is* beating inside one's uterus. The rights of that life, that human, cannot be stripped away. Because I care desperately about each person controlling their own body... that is the reason I stand against the cold blooded murder of the unborn. That person, inside you, deserves the chance to make their own decisions.

Re: Rights Are Inalienable But Forfeitable

Ed899 — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 12:18:36 -0000

I don't think your new premise follows in any way from Biddle's stated premise. "Personhood for Zygotes" is entirely consistent with the precept "one can relinquish one's own rights by violating the rights of others" if one considers the unborn a "person". You have inserted separation from the mother as in invalid condition precedent to personhood. While certainly a valid opinion, it has no more moral authority than its opposite.

Re: Rick Santorum on Pregnant Rape Victims

Georgene Bernatz — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:54:19 -0000

It might be nice to ask the rape victim how she feels about carrying a forced pregnancy to term.

Re: The Impossibility of Re-Creating Religions

Garrett Vonk — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 12:28:19 -0000

I loved that passage in God, No! as well.

However, there are still some traits and memes in this planet's religions that are going to remain consistent even, I suspect, if they were all "rebooted". It may be that these traits confer certain benefits upon society or perhaps they are more likely to be passed on like genetic traits.
Of course, you specified that the *myths* would be wildly different, and I agree. The myths are so batshit crazy; you have to remind yourself that these stories--foundational to millions of people for millenia--are fairy tales that necessarily were either fabricated or hallucinated by a small group of people, or a single person.

Re: Rick Santorum on Pregnant Rape Victims

Zev — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:32:56 -0000

Also, keep in mind that the child will very likely look very much like his rapist father. Imagine the complications for the mother/child relationship that stem from this fact. When your child looks you in the face and smiles, it should be heartwarming. Imagine looking into your child's face and seeing your smiling rapist.

Re: Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

Fareed — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:56:42 -0000

here is another fabrication by your side: "
But of course you will never hear that in a text book because the Progressives rewrote that history and make Lincoln into a hero. why?"

Re: Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

Fareed — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 20:43:18 -0000

here is but one of your fabrications: "
even though the Japanese had sued for complete surrender 5 times before the war even began (before Pearl Harbor) and twice 5 days before the bombs were dropped."

Re: No Punishment for Abortion?

cuttingthroughthematrix — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 19:59:13 -0000

These anti-abortion characters perhaps think an abortion is no worse than getting a skin lesion removed. I, of course, strongly disagree.

Re: Why It Doesn't Matter That Life Begins at Conception

dougindeap — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 19:39:16 -0000

Good points well put.

Re: Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

Alexander — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 23:13:25 -0000

I don't know why I've bothered to come back into this conversation; perhaps because the previous person did get it right: James is fabricating and taking over the subject to the point that educated people will simply not want to participate in. I have no intention of going point by point over the imagined claims, but only to point out that if one person is in fact killing a conversation on purpose, then perhaps a moderator needs to chime in and put the conversation back on track. Otherwise, this leaves an avenue to kill any unpleasant conversation (or thought).

Re: Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

James Hancock — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:37:39 -0000

I love how you assert that I'm fabricating things but provide no evidence of such.
Prove it, or you're committing slander.

(And stop drinking the cool-aid of government sponsored text books and read far more carefully. You'd be amazed and what even Canadian textbooks rightfully point out about American history that you're unwilling to accept because you're stuck in the American propaganda machine! US history is a hit parade of shameful act after shameful act. Hence why the US has absolutely no cause to claim the high ground.)

Re: Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

entryf — Tue, 17 Jan 2012 21:13:00 -0000

After that amazing analysis, it is clear that you know that James is fabricating things to prove his position. Although I found reading your points very enjoyable, I wonder why anyone would want to answer James. It's obvious he has taken over the subject and now is playing a game that he controls.

Re: "Pro-life" Atheist Arguments Against Abortion are Fallacious

Charlesripdale — Mon, 16 Jan 2012 02:38:15 -0000

If you deny that you're arguing semantics, I'd say you're beyond salvaging. Why should life have to constitute a "person" to be sacred? Birth as a cutoff point IS arbitrary. Lol very persuasive article.

Re: Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

James Hancock — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 14:51:19 -0000

"
Correction: Christians have launched exactly zero crusades against the Muslims in the last 20 years. For something to be an actual religious crusade, it would be motivated by religion and conducted for religious ends. Instead, we got into both wars that you mention for solidly secular reasons: the acts of war by Muslim dictators and terrorists. Once we were in those wars, we made no attempt to eliminate the Islamic basis other either country. In fact, we were so bent on instilling democracy that we were perfectly happy to tolerate deeply Islamic America-haters as leaders of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of killing people just for being Muslim (as would be expected in a crusade) we went to enormous, often self-sacrificial lengths to avoid civilian casualties. These actions are the opposite of a crusade."

Iraq 1: The United States was in no way threatened. There was no self-defense. It was a ruse. While the religious element is weak the point still remains that the United States attacked with no provocation. An infact attacked an ally which the US had just supplied tanks, jets and even Weapons of mass destruction (chemical weapons) a few years ago so that they could attack Iran.

Iraq 2: G. W. Bush said outright that God had spoken to him and told him to bring democracy to the middle east and especially to Iraq. That was his primary justification for the war given that he absolutely knew that the "intelligence" used to justify it to the UN was bogus. This is clearly a crusade.

"i think your death totals a also off by maybe an order of magnitude, unless you're counting muslims killed by jihadis as victims of the "crusades". If that's the case, then you're not just defending Islam, but actively whitewashing for it."

As of right now > 1 million women and children have been killed in Iraq as a direct result of Bush's Crusade. (CNN, Fox and others have all reported this.)

According to Wikipedia (and other sources) > 1 million people died directly and indirectly as a result of dropping the bombs in Japan. Both of which were not necessary because as I said they attempted complete surrender 5 days before Pearl Harbor and were rebuffed by FDR (Comes from Hover's own notes working with FDR and have been fact checked. See his unsealed and un-redacted memoirs that were released about a year ago.)

Further we also know that the US without provocation established a military blockade of Japan prior to Pearl Harbor preventing oil from reaching Japan. This was an act of war against Japan who had not done anything to threaten or otherwise commit any acts of war against the US.

And need I remind everyone that the war of Spanish succession and later the Malaysian expansion were done on pretenses that were completely false and thus were acts of war of the US against peaceful people that had never harmed us and had no intention of doing so. (and thus the US had no business being in that part of the Pacific on military operations in the first place)

Thus adding in those killed with the removal of Muslims from Israel, and those killed in the illegal act of aggression that was just completed on Libya who again never did anything to attack, threaten or otherwise harm the US and was in fact working with us to hunt down terrorists, 2.2 million is reasonable.

Further during the first Crusade, the entire Muslim population of Jerusalem was whipped out. There were approximately 100,000 living in around the city. All died. The women and children were raped first by order of the Pope. I could go into the other 3 Crusades of the dark ages but that would be redundant.

As for the Spanish inquisition and the tens if not hundreds of thousands that died during that time, and the "witches" and atheists that were murdered at the hands of the church, I didn't even total them up because no one is exactly sure how many people the church murdered as late as 1800. To say nothing of the assassination of the Knights Templar (almost all Jews) by the RC church in a coordinated attack on Friday the 13th. (yes the RC church says that this was a figment of the DaVinci Code's imagination but ask the Masons who hold detailed records, and are the ones that survived if it happened. Further it's detailed all over London if you need proof.)

"That's false, ridiculous, and misleading in every way. Dropping the bomb had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do ith ending the war that Japan started. It didn't come close to killing as many Japanese as Hitler killed Jews. And the fact that we dropped a bomb while Hitler didn't has no moral significance. It just means that we had a bomb and he didn't. "

Except as I said Japan didn't start the war and only attacked Pearl Harbor when it had no choice in an attempt to break the blockade that the US had established and was killing the Japanese as winter set in. And they did so only after offering unconditional surrender to the US and overthrowing their Emperor at the time to ensure that it would stick by replacing him with a pro US one.

Then if you don't think that it had anything to do with religion go read FDR's memoirs. He justified all of his evil acts and violations of the constitution with quotes from the Bible.

""[...] even though the Japanese had sued for complete surrender 5 times before the war even began (before Pearl Harbor) and twice 5 days before the bombs were dropped."Now that's just a complete fabrication. We were negotiating with Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, but Japan was not even contemplating giving back Manchuria. Even withdrawing from China was not seriously considered by the Japanese, much less offered as a formal bargaining position. Likewise, Japan had not (in this universe) sued for peace. Some elements of the leadership were considering the possibility of surrender, but not the unconditional surrender that the allies demanded. Other elements wouldn't even go that far. Even AFTER two atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, THE Japanese leadership was deadlocked on surrender and there was a coup attempt to prevent it. It is quite a bit worse than silly to suggest that Japan would have surrendered before that."

Read Hover's memoirs. The Japanese sent a letter to FDR (which is in the public archives now) requesting "a meeting at any location that he wished to talk terms." 5 days before Pearl Harbor. As early as August of that year they offered terms that allowed them to keep territory in China. FDR's response was to seize all Japanese assets in the US. He continued to escalate at every single attempt at peace.

The final offer by the Japanese before PH was "By whatever terms you deem acceptable". FDR ignored them. (the Emperor was actually enroute to Alaska in the assumption as that as an acceptable meeting place.)

Further 2 days before the first nuke was dropped they also offered surrender. The US refused and bombed them into oblivion. So even if you accept the lies of FDR (and I don't have a clue why you would want to accept the word of a communist in Democratic clothes) for the start of the war there is absolutely no possible justification for nuking them when there was a peaceful solution available that would have saved all of those lives and the fictional lives of Americans that were told nuking them prevented.

You've been brainwashed by the history textbooks printed by the victors. (FDR)

I'm sure you still believe that Lincoln was the great emancipator even though there is clear evidence that as little as a week before his death he was planning the mass deportation of all blacks to central america and Africa and at no time said that he was for freeing the saves and only did so because the North was losing at the time, and only did so in the southern states to create a 5th column. Further he acted to block individual states from freeing their slaves and forced free states to return escaped slaves to the southern slave states.

But of course you will never hear that in a text book because the Progressives rewrote that history and make Lincoln into a hero. why? Because he established both the superiority of the federal government over the states and violated every single section of the Constitution while in office thus setting precedence that stands today for Presidents to do whatever they want so long as they have some form of "national security" justification. (see unlimited detention of Americans and the assassination of Americans without trial and the operation of US military on US soil for the first time since the civil war as now authorized by congress. Obama's signing statement says quite clearly that he already had these powers and that they were granted to him by Lincoln's actions and congress's acquiescence at the time so he didn't need this power given to him by congress. (probably because he's already done all of these things and wanted to cover his ass))

His actions and his death were further used for justification to pass the income tax (which he tried first as was overruled by the supreme court) and ultimately the federal reserve act of 1913 which was allowed because Lincoln had set the precedence of a non-gold backed currency during the civil war. (If you have questions read Nixon's speech when he decoupled the last of the link from Gold if you have any questions)

You need to read some history critically. And by history the unadulterated true version instead of the BS pushed on us in schools.

Re: Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

Paul — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 13:35:54 -0000

"Christians in the past 20 years have had 2 crusades against the Muslims. Iraq 1 and Iraq 2/Afghanistan. Total innocent civilians killed: ~1.2 million."

Correction: Christians have launched exactly zero crusades against the Muslims in the last 20 years. For something to be an actual religious crusade, it would be motivated by religion and conducted for religious ends. Instead, we got into both wars that you mention for solidly secular reasons: the acts of war by Muslim dictators and terrorists. Once we were in those wars, we made no attempt to eliminate the Islamic basis other either country. In fact, we were so bent on instilling democracy that we were perfectly happy to tolerate deeply Islamic America-haters as leaders of both Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of killing people just for being Muslim (as would be expected in a crusade) we went to enormous, often self-sacrificial lengths to avoid civilian casualties. These actions are the opposite of a crusade.

i think your death totals a also off by maybe an order of magnitude, unless you're counting muslims killed by jihadis as victims of the "crusades". If that's the case, then you're not just defending Islam, but actively whitewashing for it.

"[Christians] Killed more Japanese with the only two nuclear weapons used during a war than Adolph Hitler did Jews [...]"

That's false, ridiculous, and misleading in every way. Dropping the bomb had nothing to do with Christianity and everything to do ith ending the war that Japan started. It didn't come close to killing as many Japanese as Hitler killed Jews. And the fact that we dropped a bomb while Hitler didn't has no moral significance. It just means that we had a bomb and he didn't.

Many historians correctly point out that dropping the atomic bombs probably saved Japanese lives, although that should not be the major justification for doing it. By summer of 1945 we were quite effectively killing Japanese in their home islands using purely conventional methods like bombing and blockade. If the war had continued another few months, many more would have been incinerated or starved. If we had invaded, many more teenage Japanese girls would have died while charging our machine gun nests with sharpened bomboo poles. And if the Soviets had mounted a successful invasion of Hokkaido, hundreds of thousands more would have been sent off to starve in Soviet slave labor camps.

"[...] even though the Japanese had sued for complete surrender 5 times before the war even began (before Pearl Harbor) and twice 5 days before the bombs were dropped."Now that's just a complete fabrication. We were negotiating with Japan prior to Pearl Harbor, but Japan was not even contemplating giving back Manchuria. Even withdrawing from China was not seriously considered by the Japanese, much less offered as a formal bargaining position. Likewise, Japan had not (in this universe) sued for peace. Some elements of the leadership were considering the possibility of surrender, but not the unconditional surrender that the allies demanded. Other elements wouldn't even go that far. Even AFTER two atomic bombs and the Soviet entry into the war, THE Japanese leadership was deadlocked on surrender and there was a coup attempt to prevent it. It is quite a bit worse than silly to suggest that Japan would have surrendered before that.

after reading the endless distortions of your first paragraph, I feel relieved of the repsonsibility of rebutting anything else you write.

Re: Is Criticism of Islam Racist? Are Most Muslims Peaceful?

James Hancock — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 09:45:46 -0000

Seriously?

The Catholic Church is the one that has the most blood on its hands! It ordered the Crusades! It ordered the Spanish Inquisition!

And now the Babtists have taken over in the US and have fought two new crusades in the past 20 years!

It's Chrisitians with the shot gun and body armor and Muslims with the knife! And when faced with those odds anyone, Muslim or Christian resorts to Terrorism (freedom fighting when attacked as the Muslims have been) instead of fighting their attacker head on.

And you know what? They go recruit others to help them take down the superior force too. And then the radicalize against their oppressor to strengthen their resolve.

In fact... there has been a time in American history where Americans did the same thing... oh wait! That's right! The US Revolutionary war! (yes that's what the Brits, as the Oppressors call it) Terrorist acts (Boston Tea Party anyone? among a long list of other far more violent acts) were the norm. But Americans were freedom fighters. Muslims are terrorists.

And guess what? They want exactly the same thing. Freedom from US occupation and oppression. Freedom from dictators that force them to live in fear for their lives and their families propped up by the US.

And ultimately if we free them, then religion will lose it's grip. That's what happened to Christians and continues to happen. Free them, let them educate themselves and the religion and the threat goes away. Enslave them and keep them ignorant and feed them generations of hate and you get what you have today.

The sad thing is that not one Objectivist that claims this silly argument that they have can tell me why they believe what they do. They can't answer why if it happened in the US it would be right and OK but horrible for Muslims to respond the same way for the same reasons. And no, an argument about Americans being righteous and more civilized doesn't fly. We long since threw that argument out the window as a nation.