Michael Egnor: The cowardice of science organizations on when life begins

_{Denyse O'Leary

June 23, 2019

Culture, Ethics, Intelligent Design, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

The scientific issues regarding the beginning and nature of human life were settled in the early 19th century:

… the science regarding the beginning of human life is settled and has been settled for 200 years. There is no debate on the science. There remain profound questions of ethics, law, and public policy regarding respect for him in life, which are valid issues for debate. There remain no questions regarding the science of the beginning of human life.
Where are the major scientific organizations on this issue? Why has not the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, or the American Medical Association stated clearly and publicly the basic scientific fact that human life begins at fertilization? The answer is obvious: many scientists in these organizations are willing to do what it takes to advance their ideology, and scientists who do understand and embrace the truth about the beginning of human life are generally too cowardly to press the issue. It’s an enormous scandal.
Michael Egnor, “What the Abortion Debate Tells Us About Integrity in Science” at Evolution News and Science Today

Maybe it relates to foolish ideas about the origin of life in general.

See also: The junk science of the abortion lobby Fetuses not only experience pain but experience it more intensely than do adults (Michael Egnor)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

It's a race to the bottom and beyond between BB and Bob O'H to see which one looks more impenetrably block-headed on this topic. Andrewasauber_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT}

Bob O'H:
I think the point is that different people have different views on when to call a foetus a person, i.e. when is “someone” actually someone.
Seeing that you cannot get to be someone without a beginning, that would be the place to start- conception. And if that bothers you then don't have sex. And if you cannot control yourself seek help.ET_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
08:31 AM
8
08
31
AM
PDT}

"I think the point is that different people have different views on when to call a foetus a person" Bob O'H, People have differing opinion on when to water their plants, too. So your argument/defense of killing someone is that you have different opinion? That's it? That's all it is? That's all you have? Andrewasauber_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
07:39 AM
7
07
39
AM
PDT}

But that’s kinda the point right? You are killing someone if the line is drawn at the first breath or the first week. Do you not understand that?
I think the point is that different people have different views on when to call a foetus a person, i.e. when is "someone" actually someone. There is no clear universal answer to this, which is why there is a considerable difference of opinion (which is then made more complicated by the notion that a mother should have rights too).Bob O'H_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

If a line has to be drawn, as Bob insists, then it needs to be drawn at the having sex part. Humans are supposed to be above the other animals. It's time we started acting like it.ET_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PDT}

"In Canada, abortion is perfectly legal up until the first breath is taken." BB, But that's kinda the point right? You are killing someone if the line is drawn at the first breath or the first week. Do you not understand that? An after the fact imaginary line doesn't change anything other than someone's attitude. Are you actually this obtuse or are you just posturing for your internet friends? Andrewasauber_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT}

Andrew
And of course, Bob O’H gets to draw the line.
I would leave it up to the people who are experts in embryonic development draw the line. And, to a great extent, they have. In Canada, abortion is perfectly legal up until the first breath is taken. In spite of this, roughly 95% of abortions occur in the first trimester.Brother Brian_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
06:47 AM
6
06
47
AM
PDT}

Asauber - why did you make that claim when I wrote nothing that could be construed as supporting it, and indeed it is utterly false? FWIW, I certainly shouldn't be the person to make such a decision: I don't have the necessary expertise. Actually, I don't think it should be up to a single person: it is an issue that would require looking at from several perspectives.Bob O'H_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
06:46 AM
6
06
46
AM
PDT}

"it’s clear that the line has to be drawn somewhere" And of course, Bob O'H gets to draw the line. Funny how it works out that the great Bob O'H gets to decide who is on the death side of the line. Where did you get the right to do this, Bob O'H? In a science paper? lol Andrewasauber_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
05:09 AM
5
05
09
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic - I'm not sure an evolutionary perspective is a big issue. Humans are a "good" species, and that's what we are interested in, so a person is any human. A big issues is when does one start to become human (which is relevant to the abortion debate), and I can't see that any one clear dividing line is objectively better than any other, although it's clear that the line has to be drawn somewhere and there are costs and benefits wherever it's drawn.Bob O'H_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
04:48 AM
4
04
48
AM
PDT}

BO'H, 16
I don’t want to get dragged into a debate on abortion, because past experience has told me that it’s not worth the hassle.
Let's not talk about the central evil of our time, the worst holocaust by far in history, 800+ million victims in 40+ years, proceeding at another million more per week. That speaks volumes. KFkairosfocus_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
12:16 AM
12
12
16
AM
PDT}

H, 30
The idea of a soul is deeply embedded in our culture
Something very much like the soul is a requisite of responsible, rational freedom thus the credibility of the mind and its products. The undermining of this has been one of the worst effects of evolutionary materialistic scientism. KFkairosfocus_{June 27, 2019
June
06
Jun
27
27
2019
12:13 AM
12
12
13
AM
PDT}

BB 70: FYI, the point of the US 2nd Amdt -- which secures the classical liberties of the 1st in the linchpin state in our civilisation (and so safeguards all of our states) -- is that the people, individually and collectively are the ultimate guarantee of liberty in the face of oppressors and tyrants. Accordingly, they should have personal and local access to arms sufficient to deter a military setting out on the sort of confiscation and subjugation attempted by the UK c April 1775. The main target of that confiscation attempt was actually cannon held by community militias, i.e. artillery (which was capable of firing grapeshot roughly comparable to a machine gun); the result was that the march of confiscation was harassed by musketry and rifle fire then faced determined local men standing at Breed Hill, ending in 1,000 red coats and 500 locals dead IIRC. Providentially, the British army had mis-matched their cannon to the ammunition so could not stand off and pound with artillery as was commonly done in Scotland. That is where the American Revolution began. So, your analysis is wrong from the outset. KF PS: In a day of increasing terror threat [think, the recent Paris and Mumbai or Kenya and Las Vegas attacks], I have suggested that there is need for systematic hardening of potential targets to include overwatch with effective semiauto rifles [full auto is over-rated] and close in protection with PDWs and semiauto pistols. I have suggested the Tavor in 6.5 mm Grendel as a good 800 - 1,000 m round. For longer reach, I add the 6.5 mm Creedmore. I have low regard for the 5.56 mm round and think the AR-15 family is outdated technology and think the usual .30 calibre rounds are not best for current circumstances though the well trained and familiar can make good use, 6.5 mm simply has better sectional density thus better ballistics with good recoil properties. I also note the Swiss model of the full marching kit in the cupboard, and how private persons were encouraged to buy older artillery pieces. Local units should have medium MGs and APC level vehicles; modern tanks are too technical for that much localisation. Responsible disciplined structure similar to Switzerland would safely manage such: crimes using such are subject to court martial. The aim, here, is to have a rifle behind every blade of grass as the Japanese admiralty noted in the 1940's, and a shotgun [I favour no 4 buck] behind every front door. Any state that is afraid to trust its lawful citizens with such a disciplined structure is already by that fact on the road to tyranny.kairosfocus_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
11:56 PM
11
11
56
PM
PDT}

BB 75: To assert:
to suggest that the line of “ All men are created equal…” included women and blacks and Chinese and Japanese ignores most of American history. Blacks are assigned a fraction of human status in the constitution . . .
ignores basic English, where man historically stood as generic reference to humanity without regard to particular distinctives. And you are too educated not to know this. Next, the point of a morally based principle of the natural law is that it is an ought not an is. That we fall below the standard is part of the moral hazard of being human. Again, you are far too well educated not to know this. Third, you are obsessed with pushing in matters of behaviour that is morally dubious as though they were equivalent to inborn characteristics of ethnicity or having XY vs XX chromosomes. This is again a dishonest rhetorical tactic. You have thus been duly corrected for record. KFkairosfocus_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
11:33 PM
11
11
33
PM
PDT}

Bob
in general I would agree that a law based on personhood wouldn’t conflict with the Establishment Clause, because I don’t think personhood must be grounded in any theological ideas
The challenge here would be to find some non-theistic grounding of the concept of personhood. I don't think it can be done from an evolutionary/materialist perspective. To do so would assign a very special status to human life that evolution cannot support.Silver Asiatic_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." And if any of you Atheist/Progressive/Statists can read for comprehension anymore, there are several examples of religious ideas and assumptions right here in the Preamble to the Constitution. Andrewasauber_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Bob O'H, This doesn't say you can't have any religious-based gov't positions. We have them right now and have had them since the dawn of gubbermints. Andrewasauber_{June 26, 2019
June
06
Jun
26
26
2019
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

BB “VB, I don’t deny that my understanding of US history is deeply flawed. “ Then I suggest you get back to me when it isn’t. Vividvividbleau_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
09:46 PM
9
09
46
PM
PDT}

BB, there you go again, predictably almost obsessively, with the oppression thesis of cultural marxism designed to pervert our understanding of the roots, structure and fruit of the blessings of liberty that are a heritage of Christendom and particularly of the impact of the reformation era. You forget that the US fought a civil war, largely over the issues that man stands for humanity. Accordingly, let me put on the table Lincoln's second inaugural address:
Fellow-Countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of this great conflict which is of primary concern to the nation as a whole, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came. One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Much more could be said, but this is enough to expose that distorted thesis for the subterfuge it is, a turnabout projection driven propaganda accusation used by those who on manifest record are demonstrated enemies out to subvert genuine liberty and put licence and libertinism backed by domination of key power centres in its place. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT}

Folks, Much of the above would be amusing, if it were not so sad. For example, the religious exclusion interpretation of the US Constitution is sustained only by cultivation of ignorance of its contents and context; the DoI being only the most obvious case. Where, that DoI is brought in in the reference to the 12th year of Independence and the context that this is delivering on the new government promise of para 2. Now, observe grand statement structure -- a common feature in traditional legal documents, where the whole constitutes a structured elaborate statement. First, Confederation, 1778:
And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union. Know Ye that we the undersigned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do by these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify and confirm each and every of the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union . . . . In Witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands in Congress. Done at Philadelphia in the State of Pennsylvania the ninth day of July in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-Eight, and in the Third Year of the independence of America.
Now, Constitution 9 y later:
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America . . . . [Main Body, Arts I - VII] . . . . Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth. In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names. . . . . [AMENDMENTS].
Notice, "blessings of Liberty"? "Blessings" of course -- as Madison, principal author (who studied theology at New Jersey College [now Princeton] under Witherspoon; the only clergyman to sign the DOI) surely knew -- is in the main a covenantal, theological term, not generally a legal one. It is noteworthy that in the May 1776 fast proclamation, a specific petition was that God would be pleased to restore the American Continent to the blessings of peace and liberty. Similar language repeatedly appears in the other Congressional proclamations from 1776 - 1783, in a consistent, explicilty Christian context. In short, the US Constitution is best understood in that materially Christian context as an instrument for the restoration and preservation to posterity of the God-given blessings of liberty through the institution of new Government under God. Let me cite:
May 1776 [over the name of John Hancock, first signer of the US Declaration of Indpependence] : In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered by the secret machinations and open assaults of an insidious and vindictive administration, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger, and prospering our strenuous efforts in the cause of freedom, virtue, and posterity.. . . Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprizes, on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life, appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance to frustrate the cruel purposes of our unnatural enemies; . . . that it may please the Lord of Hosts, the God of Armies, to animate our officers and soldiers with invincible fortitude, to guard and protect them in the day of battle, and to crown the continental arms, by sea and land, with victory and success: Earnestly beseeching him to bless our civil rulers, and the representatives of the people, in their several assemblies and conventions; to preserve and strengthen their union, to inspire them with an ardent, disinterested love of their country; to give wisdom and stability to their counsels; and direct them to the most efficacious measures for establishing the rights of America on the most honourable and permanent basis—That he would be graciously pleased to bless all his people in these colonies with health and plenty, and grant that a spirit of incorruptible patriotism, and of pure undefiled religion, may universally prevail; and this continent be speedily restored to the blessings of peace and liberty, and enabled to transmit them inviolate to the latest posterity. And it is recommended to Christians of all denominations, to assemble for public worship, and abstain from servile labour on the said day.
Theologically, this was an act of covenant with God called for by the representatives of a nation shaped by the fires of revival through the work of Whitefield and many others. Yes, CONGRESS preached revival as the context of restoring God's blessing to an errant nation whose sin had opened the way for Satan's minions to vex them with acts of war, which had been underway since about April 1775. Two months later, after petitions failed, the call for Independence was issued and it clearly falls well within the double covenant creation order view of nationhood and government under God. Let us remember:
When . . . it becomes necessary for one people . . . to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, [cf Rom 1:18 - 21, 2:14 - 15], that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security . . . . We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions [Cf. Judges 11:27 and discussion in Locke], do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
And again, seventeen months later, Congress again called the nation to its knees:
December 1777: FORASMUCH as it is the indispensable Duty of all Men to adore the superintending Providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with Gratitude their Obligation to him for benefits received, and to implore such farther Blessings as they stand in Need of; And it having pleased him in his abundant Mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable Bounties of his common Providence, but also to smile upon us in the Prosecution of a just and necessary War, for the Defence and Establishment of our unalienable Rights and Liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a Measure to prosper the Means used for the Support of our Troops and to crown our Arms with most signal success: It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart THURSDAY, the eighteenth Day of December next, for Solemn Thanksgiving and Praise; That with one Heart and one Voice the good People may express the grateful Feelings of their Hearts, and consecrate themselves to the Service of their Divine Benefactor; and that together with their sincere Acknowledgments and Offerings, they may join the penitent Confession of their manifold Sins, whereby they had forfeited every Favour, and their humble and earnest Supplication that it may please GOD, through the Merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of Remembrance; That it may please him graciously to afford his Blessing on the Governments of these States respectively, and prosper the public Council of the whole; to inspire our Commanders both by Land and Sea, and all under them, with that Wisdom and Fortitude which may render them fit Instruments, under the Providence of Almighty GOD, to secure for these United States the greatest of all human blessings, INDEPENDENCE and PEACE; That it may please him to prosper the Trade and Manufactures of the People and the Labour of the Husbandman, that our Land may yet yield its Increase; To take Schools and Seminaries of Education, so necessary for cultivating the Principles of true Liberty, Virtue and Piety, under his nurturing Hand, and to prosper the Means of Religion for the promotion and enlargement of that Kingdom which consisteth “in Righteousness, Peace and Joy in the Holy Ghost.”[i.e. Cites Rom 14:9] [Source: Journals of the American Congress From 1774 to 1788 (Washington: Way and Gideon, 1823), Vol. I, pp. 286-287 & II, pp. 309 - 310.]
That is the specific theological context, and it fully justifies the following Library of Congress note on the matter:
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men . . . both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity . . . . Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people . . . The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
The radical secularist wrenching of the text and context of the US Constitution is without merit and a manifest case of failure of duty to truth and warrant passed of as erudition and now conventional wisdom. In the context just outlined, that leads us to the proper conclusion -- but one of course now hotly disputed by secularists and their ilk [sadly, on the evidence, based on negligence (or worse . . .) relative to the material facts] -- that the US Constitution sought, in an explicitly Christian context to secure the rights of liberty endowed by the Creator, through instituting a new order of Government, which eventually became what we think of today as representative democratic self-government by free peoples. [In passing, notice the way the dates acknowledge Jesus as Lord, cf. Rom 1:1 - 5; contrasting the French Revolution's new secularised calendar of only a few years later.] In doing so, the Constitution set out to fulfill the promise in the Declaration of Independence, and was thus the second of the two covenenats envisioned in the reformation era Biblically derived theory of legitimate government first developed in detail in Vindiciae, so it was deeply informed by the reformation stream of thought that viewed revolution through interposition of lower civil authorities as justified to depose tyrants and set up a better form of Government under God to protect justice, thus rights. In that regard, it has been a great success for some 220 years now, and blazed a path down which more and more of the world has trod. Finally, since the First Amendment's establishment clause -- which simply does NOT mention "separation of church and state" [a phrase from a letter by Jefferson (who, being in France at the time, is not one of the authors of the US Constitution)] -- is also often the subject of a related confusion, let us pause to address this too:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is helpful to see this in light of the American Founders' tendency to look for and adapt or adopt successful precedents as far as possible for their own experiment in liberty -- and not just parochially in the history of the American colonies or the British motherland, either. For, as the Federalist papers reveal, they had a wide sweep of historical understanding (gaps in it notwithstanding). That brings to focus, the events in the aftermath of the reformation and the resulting sad and horrendous wars over religion, which were finally settled through the religious principles of the 1555 Peace of Augsburg and the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648, especially the point therein, that (as a part of the broader principle of non-interference in local affairs) the religion of the local state would be that of the local prince (cuius regio, eius religio). As even so humble a source as Wikipedia notes of this and associated treaties: "[t]he peace as a whole is often used by historians to mark the beginning of the modern era . . . . The Treaty established a framework of international law [resting on: [1] the sovereignty of nation-states and the fundamental right of political self determination; [2] (legal) equality between nation-states; [3] internationally binding treaties between states; [4] non-intervention of one state in the internal affairs of another state] . . . intended to establish a durable peace between the parties involved. This was revolutionary at the time, because it relied on international agreements between sovereign states rather than military strength." In effect, the Framers adapted the cuius regio, eius religio concept to federal-republican circumstances, by stipulating: [1] there would be no federal church of the USA (contrast, say, the Anglican Church in Britain, and Lutheran, Calvinist/Reformed and Catholic churches in Europe) -- in fact [2] Congress and associated federal bodies have no proper jurisdiction on establishment, so can make no law on that subject; [3] Congress may not prohibit the free exercise of religion and commonly associated behaviours: speech, publication, assembly, petition for redress. (It is helpful -- this side of the Civil War -- to recognise that there is a reason why the founders sometimes spoke of "these united States.") Thus, in a republican context, the right of the local state to establish its own state church was protected [nine of thirteen states has just such state churches at the time], and the rights of dissenters were protected. Backing this up, the 10th Amendment reserves rights not explicitly delegated to the Federal Government to the states and their people. The intended effect -- sadly, long since materially subverted through activist courts imposing and in effect establishing decidedly minority secularist opinions on matters where the courts often have no proper jurisdiction [and thus are building up exactly that tidal wave of hostility that the Framers sought to avert!] -- would be that in the local community, the majority sentiment would shape its general religious tone, but the minority down to the individual would be heard and protected. Liberty, in short. KFkairosfocus_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

VB, I don’t deny that my understanding of US history is deeply flawed. But I share that with 95%+ of the population. Who won the war of 1812? But to suggest that the line of “ All men are created equal...” included women and blacks and Chinese and Japanese ignores most of American history. Blacks are assigned a fraction of human status in the constitution. Women were not given equal legal status to men until well in to the 20th century. Japanese Americans had there “equal” rights stripped during the Second World War. Homosexuals are still “legally denied employment.Brother Brian_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:45 PM
8
08
45
PM
PDT}

Hazel
I see, BB. I agree then:
Thank you. I can now sleep well. :) I fear that I was poor in presenting my argument.Brother Brian_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:31 PM
8
08
31
PM
PDT}

BB “The concept that all men are created equal was a key to European Enlightenment philosophy. But the interpretation of "all men" has hovered over the Declaration of Independence since its creation. Although most people have interpreted "all men" to mean humanity, others have argued that Jefferson and the other authors of the Declaration meant to exclude women and children. Within the context of the times it is clear that "all men" was a euphemism for "humanity," and thus those people, such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, who used the Declaration of Independence to demand equality for African Americans and women seized the historical as well as the moral high ground” Library of Congress Brian I repeat your understanding of American History is deeply flawed. Vividvividbleau_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:22 PM
8
08
22
PM
PDT}

I see, BB. I agree then: obviously we have to look at our own times because we aren't 1790's America anymore, balancing fundamental core principles with changes in the facts of our culture now vs then.hazel_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

BB “I am confused. “ No argument there. “We base our laws on what we thing the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution (or, less so, the declaration)?” No we base our laws on the constitution which flows from the Declaration. “ That is the prime function of the Supreme Court. Interpreting the constitution with regard to the intentions of the drafters. “ No , the SC interprets whether a law is Constitutional , sometimes they will try to understand what the drafters meant while others, such in Roe v Wade base it on a “penumbra “ “But you are suggesting that we ignore what their beliefs and intentions were.” Their intentions are pretty clearly defined both in the Declaration and the Constitution , what is in those documents that are unclear to you. Vividvividbleau_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:12 PM
8
08
12
PM
PDT}

Hazel@67, I’m not sure I understand what you are saying. I am not suggesting that we judge them as people through a modern filter. I don’t think that is fair. I don’t think that I would like to have all of my actions from the 1960s judged on 2019 standards. What I am suggesting is that we shouldn’t judge our modern society through the filter of their day. For example, the right to bear arms was written when match-lock, non-rifled guns were the height of the arms industry. Should we completely ignore advances in armaments when we interpret this amendment? Similarly, should we interpret women’s rights based on what the founding fathers’ intended (which was that women were subservient to men) or should we acknowledge that times have changed and that what they believed in 1776 does not apply today?Brother Brian_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
08:03 PM
8
08
03
PM
PDT}

Hazel June 25, 2019 at 8:43 pm But I don’t think it’s reasonable to filter their actions through a modern filter. They were in the times they were in, doing very important things, but being people as people were then. I think this has to apply to all history. In ways, people are people no matter when they live, but in very important ways they are part of their culture, and need to be looked at sort of anthropologically, I think, not with judgments based on hindsight or our current culture. What the heck is this trash I came in here to check out what the hubbub was all about in this thread because my other threads died and this is what I’m reading (joking) *gasp* This is an oddly eloquently peaceful statement and I find myself in complete agreement with you no matter what the context well saidAaronS1978_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

VB
Doesn’t matter what they support it’s is what the ideas they put forth that matter....
I am confused. We base our laws on what we thing the founding fathers intended when they wrote the constitution (or, less so, the declaration)? That is the prime function of the Supreme Court. Interpreting the constitution with regard to the intentions of the drafters. But you are suggesting that we ignore what their beliefs and intentions were.Brother Brian_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
07:47 PM
7
07
47
PM
PDT}

But I don't think it's reasonable to filter their actions through a modern filter. They were in the times they were in, doing very important things, but being people as people were then. I think this has to apply to all history. In ways, people are people no matter when they live, but in very important ways they are part of their culture, and need to be looked at sort of anthropologically, I think, not with judgments based on hindsight or our current culture.hazel_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

Hazel
I’m with Vivid on this one.
Et to Brute? :) All I am suggesting is that we filter our founding fathers’ actions through a modern day perspective. I don’t deny that they thought that they were doing what they thought was best for everyone. But did they consult women ( half the population)? Employees and other non-land owners? Slaves? Indentured servants? Chinese and Japanese immigrants? The indigenous peoples? If they didn’t, they were only speaking for a small fraction of the US population of the time. And if that is the case, why do we insist on filtering everything we do through what we think their intentions were?Brother Brian_{June 25, 2019
June
06
Jun
25
25
2019
07:32 PM
7
07
32
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply