Intellectual Morons

[vraiblonde]

That's the book I just started tonight. It explores ideology and what makes people get so invested in ideas that they'll engage in contradictory reasoning rather than realize/admit that their original theory was flawed.

Quote:

To question the joiner's faith is to mark oneself as an enemy. Mocking the guru or challenging the system puts the ideologue on the defensive, and not merely regarding his worldview. The joiner, whose submission to the guru's teaching is often rewarded with automatic friends, a newfound social life, and restored purpose, views the heretic as a threat to all this and defends accordingly.

Movements attract misfits. The desire to change the world usually corresponds with personal unhappiness. The frustrated man, not the contented one, goes about altering his surroundings.

The individual who doesn't thrive as an individual longs to be part of something bigger. The Cause allows him to belong to the group, but naturally takes his individuality in the process. As the joiner loses his identity amid the mass, adversaries lose their individuality - and their humanity - in the eyes of the joiner.

Pretty interesting.

 

[huntr1]

You're reading the DNC handbook?

 

[SamSpade]

That's the book I just started tonight. It explores ideology and what makes people get so invested in ideas that they'll engage in contradictory reasoning rather than realize/admit that their original theory was flawed.

I think I'd like to read it myself, although at some level, EVERYBODY does this. People stay with jobs, churches, social circles and friends, relationships, all kinds of things for FAR longer than makes any sense, because to do otherwise would be to admit they'd been wrong about it. I think this is especially true of people in abusive relationships or cults, because they already have far too much of their life invested in it. But this may help to help ME understand the cult that I once belonged to.

I don't totally agree with the quotes, however; while dissastisfied people go looking for causes, sometimes they are people who are quite successful and join "movements", because their success didn't bring the satisfaction they craved. But I will have to read the book to see what was meant.

 

[Tonio]

The book sounds very fascinating. I've stayed away from ideology for most of my adult life. My definition of "ideology" includes organized religion, issue groups such as PETA, and both sides of the abortion debate. To me, ideology feels like an attempt to control what people believe. If the book is right, that control might be the natural result of the group's drive for self-preservation. I've heard the claim that ANY type of organization reaches a point where the organization's only goal becomes its own preservation.

 

[vraiblonde]

What's fascinating are the contradictory positions ideologues take. Like the biggest proponents of diversity and tolerance wanting to silence anyone that disagrees with them. Or being pro-abortion, yet anti-death penalty. Or, well, jumping all over Bob Packwood, yet giving Clinton a pass because "he's on our side".

I'm interested in how people resolve that in ther mind. Do they feel the end justifies the means? Do they truly not see the contradiction? Interesting....

 

[rraley]

What's fascinating are the contradictory positions ideologues take. Like the biggest proponents of diversity and tolerance wanting to silence anyone that disagrees with them. Or being pro-abortion, yet anti-death penalty. Or, well, jumping all over Bob Packwood, yet giving Clinton a pass because "he's on our side".

Or being "pro-life" yet supporting the death penalty.

 

[SamSpade]

What's fascinating are the contradictory positions ideologues take. Like the biggest proponents of diversity and tolerance wanting to silence anyone that disagrees with them. .........................................
I'm interested in how people resolve that in ther mind. Do they feel the end justifies the means? Do they truly not see the contradiction? Interesting....

Oooh, oooh, I know this one.

Used to be involved with a majorly liberal person.

The reason they don't extend the truce of tolerance to you, in your views is.....

*YOUR* views are *wrong*.

Ok, stop laughing. It's like this. Suppose this is the civil rights era, and they - the libs - are all for equal rights for blacks. Someone opposes them and says they don't want blacks going to their school, or their restaurant, or allowed in their neighborhood. They want the ability to fire someone, because they don't like their race.

And this view isn't tolerated, because - at least a lot of us - believe it to be wrong. It doesn't come down to a difference of opinion. One side is a massively bigoted and prejudicial reaction.

Fast forward a couple years - women. SAME thing. Some want the ability to prevent women out of top management. Presumably, women just can't be relied upon in such high profile roles. SO they want the abiltiy to keep women out of certain schools, clubs, jobs etc. And people don't extend tolerance to this view - class?? -- because it's *wrong*.

Fast forward to TODAY.

Pick ANY issue. It really doesn't matter. Libs STILL tend to stake out their territory on issues, no matter how small, on their side being the right one. They don't HAVE to tolerate your view, because it's wrong.

(I can hear it now, but you're mistaken; *conservatives* don't do this. The RELIGIOUS RIGHT does this - and *true* neo-cons - but they're not the same thing. Conservatives are pragmatists; it's not a matter of right and wrong, but of what works, and what doesn't.).

Case in point - Ward Churchill claims the WTC victims were akin to Nazis. The left claims that complaints about his remarks are tantamount to censorship.

Harvard Univeristy President Lawrence Summers gives a speech over gender differences - which despite what people say, has sound *scientific* grounds - and the left is calling for his resignation.

As you say - if it's OUR guy, it's ok. If it's YOUR guy, it's not ok. Not a matter of opinion, you see. YOUR guy was putting down women (not true) and that's SOOO wrong of you conservative types. Our guy was simply stating the God own truth that the WTC people were all little Eichmanns. And see, THAT is *true*, so shutting HIM up --- class? -- would be WRONG.

See?

I really would like to get ahold of that book.

 

[SamSpade]

Or being "pro-life" yet supporting the death penalty.

I don't see those as contradictory, but perhaps the moniker "pro-life" is a bad one.

A child forming in the womb has a right to have life. He deserves a chance.

A murderer on death row has forfeited theirs by taking one. He blew his chance.

 

[vraiblonde]

Or being "pro-life" yet supporting the death penalty.

Apples and oranges, my dear. But you already knew that, naughty thing.

Make a case for why an innocent, unborn child should die, but a criminal who has murdered, raped or worse should live.

 

[vraiblonde]

I really would like to get ahold of that book.

It's pretty good so far. While I can enjoy a good lib-basher, what I like best is something that explores the psychology of these folks without a lot of theatrics and rhetoric. I'm never interested in the Michael Moores and Michael Savages of the world.

 

[rraley]

Apples and oranges, my dear. But you already knew that, naughty thing.

Make a case for why an innocent, unborn child should die, but a criminal who has murdered, raped or worse should live.

My Church and my Pope has stated that life is life whether it is an unborn child or a convicted murderer. Life is sacred and humans should not, under any circumstances, take that life. Think of it this way...suppose some man decided that a suspect for his relative's murder is guilty. Therefore he kills the murderer, thus opening himself to prosecution for murder. The government holds that an individual cannot execute, but that the government itself may. Under my reasoning, I view the government as a collection of individuals that is representative of the individual and I believe that it should be held to the same standard as its citizens. If the citizens may not kill, then neither should the government.

In my estimation, neither that innocent, unborn child should die nor should that criminal. Let God do the life and death judgements.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well, well, well...

Life is sacred and humans should not, under any circumstances, take that life.

Dear Gov. Dukakis,

If your mom was being attacked by a gang in a parking lot, horribly beaten, in the process of being drug into a van, and you were coming out of a sporting goods store with a new shotgun and some shells to go skeet shooting, would you or would you not use deadly force to save your mother?

If you were on one of the 9/11 flights and you knew your ass was grass if you just sat there, would you or would you not try to subdue the terrorists by any means necessary up to and including lethal force?

Shall I go on?

 

[SamSpade]

Let God do the life and death judgements.

As you almost certainly know, the Bible forbids murder, which isn't the same thing as taking a life. At least in the Old Testament, where it DOES say Thou shalt not kill, it also says a life for a life. If this is the source of our belief in the sacredness of life, it doesn't say what you are saying.

I used to be of the opinion you express - that it was morally correct to be passive in ALL situations, no matter how dangerous. It was up to God to protect me from thugs and robbers - and if he didn't, it was a lack of faith for me to take matters into my own hands.

I believe otherwise, now. I believe God EXPECTS you to take matters into your hands in most circumstances. If someone is attacking someone you love, it is wrong to sit back and expect God to take care of it. God acts through individuals on this Earth. He also acts through the state.

Romans 13:1ff

<SUP id=en-NIV-28253>1</SUP>Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. <SUP id=en-NIV-28254>2</SUP>Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. <SUP id=en-NIV-28255>3</SUP>For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. <SUP id=en-NIV-28256>4</SUP>For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. <SUP id=en-NIV-28257>5</SUP>Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. <SUP id=en-NIV-28258>6</SUP>This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. <SUP id=en-NIV-28259>7</SUP>Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

It's interesting to note that the government Paul was referring to was likely the ROMAN government. It was there not because of its righteousness, but because God allowed it.

That's the "moral" argument. If you're going to appeal to whether or not it is MORAL to take a life - for a government to do so - there's plenty of Scriptural support for the state to take a life.

But the philosophical argument is the same, to me. There are crimes which cannot be tolerated, and for which you forfeit your rights by committing them.

There's also the practical argument - it's impossible to allow a killer to go unpunished, with respect to how people feel about it. You can't let him go free with the forgiveness of the people - for one, they WON'T forgive him; they'll kill him. For another - you can't allow crimes to go without a measured response. I'm not saying YOU are saying this; but there has to be consequences for crimes; we can't just let crime go unchecked because "God will sort it out". Since the dawn of civilization - and as long as there's been a belief in God - there have been men to enforce the laws.

UNFORTUNATELY, it's a rarity in this nation that a man DOES in fact, serve a life sentence to completion. The only way to be certain a man doesn't get out, is to end his life.

From where I sit, I don't see a moral difference between incarcerating a man for life, and taking his life. One puts him in a cage, the other, a grave. Same result, but one is more appropriate.

I don't think the death penalty violates the premise of the sanctity of life, especially with murderers. It is wholly in keeping with it, to destroy the life of those who refuse to respect it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

My Church and my Pope has stated that life is life whether it is an unborn child or a convicted murderer. Life is sacred and humans should not, under any circumstances, take that life. Think of it this way...suppose some man decided that a suspect for his relative's murder is guilty. Therefore he kills the murderer, thus opening himself to prosecution for murder. The government holds that an individual cannot execute, but that the government itself may. Under my reasoning, I view the government as a collection of individuals that is representative of the individual and I believe that it should be held to the same standard as its citizens. If the citizens may not kill, then neither should the government.

In my estimation, neither that innocent, unborn child should die nor should that criminal. Let God do the life and death judgements.

rr, since you bring the church into it, if you believe the Bible, and Christ said He did not come to abolish the law and prophets, the concept of society killing murderers, rapists, and the like is specified by Biblical law no matter what your pope or priest says. I won't supply scripture since this is the Politics forum, but I do know it.

 

[2ndAmendment]

As you almost certainly know, the Bible forbids murder, which isn't the same thing as taking a life. At least in the Old Testament, where it DOES say Thou shalt not kill, it also says a life for a life. If this is the source of our belief in the sacredness of life, it doesn't say what you are saying.

Just to enforce what you post the more correct translation is "You shall not murder" not "You shall not kill". The Bible makes a distinction between murder and killing.

 

[Bruzilla]

You know RR... you might want to put down the Democratic handbook at some point and come up with some more realistic arguments. There's no way that you can equate the taking of an unborn child's life with the punishment of a murderer. Also, never use the bible as a source of validation for the arguments of Democrats... you'll lose every time!

Here's the argument to make: Why is it so terrible to murder an innocent unborn child, but okay to murder an innocent unborn child resulting from rape or incest, purely for the reason of making the mother/family feel better? The child didn't rape or have sex with a family member, so why should it suffer that horrible fate?

Then ask why is it okay to murder an innocent child to save a mother? Why does that woman have more rights to live than the innocent child? Could it be because the unborn child doesn't have rights... and there you've got them by the shorthairs my friend.

 

[rraley]

Bru, this isn't about Democratic or Republican...3 of the last 5 Democratic presidential candidates have been for the death penalty and polls show overwhelming support for it from average Democratic voters. This, for me, is about my religious faith. That faith is the reason that I oppose abortion and the death penalty. The only way that I could support the death penalty was if there was evidence that such an action was a deterrent. There is no such evidence, therefore I cannot go against my faith on this issue.

2A, here are some Biblical passages for you, spoken by Jesus himself and not a quote from the Old Testmant (which lists 612 violations of the law that are punishable by death; this includes everything from pre-marital sex to homosexuality to practicing different religions).

When they persisited in their questioning, he straightened up and said to them "Let the man among you who has no sin be the first to cast a stone at her."

John 8:7

You have heard the commandment, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury. When a person strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer the other.

Matthew 5: 38-39

In the first quote from John, Christ seems to suggest that God is the judge, not the sinners of earth. In the second quote from Matthew, Jesus throws out the old, Old Testament conceptualization of retaliation, suggesting that Christ did not view the death penalty as just.

Sir, the New Testament, unlike Hewbrew Scriptures, does not contain a set of laws that are punishable by death. Only in one instance was a person killed because of a violation of Christian law (and in this instance, God himself was the executor, not man; refer to Acts 5:1-11).

Furthermore 2A, for the first three centuries after Christ's death, Christian scholars were universally opposed to the death penalty. Here's a quote from Lactantius' "The Divine Institutes:"

Nor is it lawful to accuse anyone of a capital offense. It makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or by the sword. It is the act of putting to death itself which is prohibited. Therefore, regarding this precept of God there should be no exception at all. Rather it is always unlawful to put to death a man, whom God willed to be a sacred creature.

Christians were instructed not to attend public executions, not to actually execute criminals, and not even allege a crime if doing so would lead to the criminal's execution.

The Pope, the priests, and millions of Catholics worldwide have a Biblical and historical foundation for today's teachings regarding the sanctity of life from conception to natural death. To throw them aside so quickly and so negatively, 2A, really is disrespectful.

(Sorry if bringing the Bible into the politics forums offends anyone, but I think that it is fitting in this situation plus I find that religion does indeed have a place in politics seeing as the vast majority of Americans believe in a higher power).

 

[SamSpade]

rraley - good on you for trying to support your position. But I believe you are mistaken. The first quote from John is a peculiar one, because Jesus also knew they intended to trap him; they weren't concerned about doing what is just at all. Some early Christian writers claimed that what he wrote in the sand were prominent sins of those standing nearby. Nevertheless, while God is the judge, Jesus could ill afford to stand in opposition to what every one KNEW was the law.

You and I apparently have a completely different perspective on how the state should handle things, and how an individual should - and that difference has a lot to do with my being conservative. I do NOT see the state as simply a larger extension of the individual. I can afford to BE merciful and compassionate - but I don't expect the STATE to be that way. And I believe that, because I cannot reasonably expect everyone to believe as *I* do - but we can all believe in following the laws we have set up for ourselves. Furthermore, I expect the state to protect my freedoms and enforce the laws. You personally may think it's ok to turn the other cheek; I for one am glad we have cops who will manhandle lawbreakers, cuff 'em and stick their butts in jail.

The problem with idyllic Christian utopian government is it really only takes one infidel to screw it all up. And it only takes ONE person to disagree with how it is done. You just can't have a GOVERNMENT that "turns the other cheek" and leaves judgment up to God. YOU can be merciful. *I* can be merciful. But I prefer a secular approach to handling government. As such, I don't expect the government to be 'nice' to me - to take care of me when I'm old, sick, retired, unemployed, poor. I expect it to be blindly just, and to provide for the "general welfare" - buidling roads, bridges, and so forth.

See, if you have laws - you're going to have lawbreakers - people who WON'T follow "Christian" princicples. People who will hurt, steal, rob. Murder. And the "Christian" thing for YOU to do is to turn the other cheek. But civilization would collapse if the government applied that standard. And it doesn't. And the quote I gave from Romans 13 still applies - governments are institutions established by God himself. It doesn't mean they are righteous - just that God allows them. They are in effect, God's instrument to combat "unrighteousness" - crime. As the Scripture stated, they aren't something to be feared if you follow the laws; only if you BREAK them.

A "Christian" applying the lessons you outlined would NEVER incarcerate anyone. Rather, he would bless, and not revile. He would forgive.

A STATE that followed such a principle would dissolve into chaos.

 

[Larry Gude]

I am feel ignored o' grasshopper...

if there was evidence that such an action was a deterrent

Proof you say:

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=414&scid=8


A list of the, how shall I put this, dissuaded.

 

[rraley]

Larry...

From your own site...

Murder rates by region compared to number of executions...

Of the twelve states without the death penalty, only two have murder rates higher than the national average. Nine of the eighteen states with murder rates above the national average are found in the South. The South, meanwhile, is the only region surveyed to have a murder rate higher than the national average. On top of this, the South is the region with the most executions since the death penalty's reinstatement in 1976. The Northeast, the region with the least executions, meanwhile, has the lowest murder rate in the nation.

This is not compelling evidence that deterrence actually exists. In fact, it disproves that theory. Deterrence is just a buzzword that proponents of the death penalty choose to use when trying to justify it. No empirical evidence, however, can prove this theory; instead proponents must use anecdotal evidence, which in my book, is hardly ever applicable when deciding public policy.

To Sam...

I am not saying that the government should forgive without some sort of punishment/rehabilitation. I am in no way arguing for a Christian utopian government. Punishment is needed for criminals, especially ones who have time and time again proven that they are menaces to society. These people should be locked away in order to ensure society's safety from them. I am contending that we should treat cases of life and death differently. It is not right or moral for people to decide who lives and who dies in terms of either abortion or the death penalty.

I, too, agree that public policy should be made from a more secular positioning. BUT...we cannot remove all emotion, faith, etc. from the debate. Some sense of morality and justice must be applied. And, in my view, the government should only engage in killing when it is completely justified (i.e., wars that help protect this land or enable more security/freedom for other nations). Since I do not see any solid evidence in favor of deterrence, I do not believe that the death penalty helps to make America safer, thus it is not justifible. As such, not only does the death penalty violate the teachings of my religion, but it violates my sense of justice as well.