Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Taking Manhattan out of the Apple?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The Manhattan Declaration, a manifesto asserting the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and liberty of conscience, has been discussed previously on Uncommon Descent (see here and here ). Well, it’s in the news again.

I expect many readers will have heard by now that Apple has removed the Manhattan Declaration iPhone/iPad application from the iTunes Store. The Declaration – a Christian statement drafted in 2009 that supports religious liberty, traditional marriage and right to life issues – now has 479,532 supporters. The Manhattan Declaration app was accepted by Apple and rated as a 4+, meaning that it contained no objectionable material.

Last month, around Thanksgiving, the Manhattan Declaration application for iPhones and iPads was suddenly dropped, after the activist group Change.org gathered more than 7,700 signatures for a petition, after claiming that the application promoted “anti-gay” bigotry and “homophobia,” and that it attacked both “equal rights and the right of women to control their own bodies.” Under a headline entitled, “Tell the Apple iTunes Store to remove anti-gay, anti-choice iPhone application,” the petition drive concluded with the words: “Let’s send a strong message to Apple that supporting homophobia and efforts to restrict choice is bad business.

The petition seems to have had the desired effect. Catholic News Agency contacted Apple on December 2 for the reason behind its decision to pull the Manhattan Declaration application. Spokesperson Trudy Muller said via phone that the company “removed the Manhattan Declaration app from the App Store because it violates our developer guidelines by being offensive to large groups of people.” Strange. Why the 4+ rating, then?

I believe in calling spade a spade, so I’ll just come right out and say it: Change.org lied to its readers and to Apple about the purpose of the Manhattan Declaration.

In their online petition to Steve Jobs, Change.org made the following deceitful claim:

The Manhattan Declaration application exists to collect signatures on a website which espouses hateful and divisive language, the very kind of language I hope the iTunes Store will not want to help disseminate…

Apple’s reputation is too important to be associated with this hate filled organization.

Oh, really? Let’s see what the Manhattan Declaration actually says about the unborn and about gay marriage.

In defense of unborn human life

The section on “Life” contains the following words:

A truly prophetic Christian witness will insistently call on those who have been entrusted with temporal power to fulfill the first responsibility of government: to protect the weak and vulnerable against violent attack, and to do so with no favoritism, partiality, or discrimination. The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak. And so we defend and speak for the unborn, the disabled, and the dependent.

Our concern is not confined to our own nation. Around the globe, we are witnessing cases of genocide and “ethnic cleansing,” the failure to assist those who are suffering as innocent victims of war, the neglect and abuse of children, the exploitation of vulnerable laborers, the sexual trafficking of girls and young women, the abandonment of the aged, racial oppression and discrimination, the persecution of believers of all faiths, and the failure to take steps necessary to halt the spread of preventable diseases like AIDS. We see these travesties as flowing from the same loss of the sense of the dignity of the human person and the sanctity of human life that drives the abortion industry and the movements for assisted suicide, euthanasia, and human cloning for biomedical research. And so ours is, as it must be, a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

“The Bible enjoins us to defend those who cannot defend themselves, to speak for those who cannot themselves speak.” “Ours is … a truly consistent ethic of love and life for all humans in all circumstances.” Is this hateful language? You tell me.

I notice that Change.org speaks of “choice” in its online petition drive, oblivious to the fact that the innocent human being whose life is terminated during an abortion is denied a choice.

In defense of traditional marriage

“What about gays and lesbians?” you ask. Again, not a trace of hate. In the section on “Marriage,” the Manhattan Declaration affirms “the profound, inherent, and equal dignity of every human being as a creature fashioned in the very image of God, possessing inherent rights of equal dignity and life.” Obviously that includes gays and lesbians. The Declaratio­n goes on:

We acknowledg­e that there are those who are disposed towards homosexual and polyamorou­s conduct and relationsh­ips, just as there are those who are disposed towards other forms of immoral conduct… We stand with them, even when they falter. We, no less than they, are sinners who have fallen short of God’s intention for our lives…

And so it is out of love (not “animus”) and prudent concern for the common good (not “prejudice”), that we pledge to labor ceaselessly to preserve the legal definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to rebuild the marriage culture. (Emphases mine – VJT.)

Some readers may disagree with these sentiments­; but there’s no condescens­ion here. Notice the wording: “We, no less than they, are sinners.”

As I write this, more than 35,523 people have signed an online petition to have the Manhattan Declaration iPhone app reinstated. I would strongly urge readers to lend their support to the petition by signing it here or here.

Let’s send a strong message to Apple that giving a group of concerned citizens a platform to express their opinions, and then withdrawing that platform without warning, is bad business.

Comments
and notice how neither SAR nor any other party on that side dares address the Columbia U case
I don't address it because it is not relevant to the discussion. Incest is a totally different issue than homosexuality. Bringing it into this discussion is merely an attempt to inflame and distract with emotional manipulation by conflating the two issues. It isn't a valid tactic when the odious PZ Myers conflates the actions of Fred Phelps with all Christians and doesn't become a valid tactic because you believe you have angels on your side.San Antonio Rose
December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PDT
PS: Onlookers, note, as I have repeatedly pointed out, it is not for us to arbitrarily redefine what marriage and the family are in light of the complementarity of the sexes and the roles and requisites of procreation and child nurture. To try to do so will further destabilise our civilisation. Further to this, by its nature as a mutually agreed permanent covenant, marriage is not -- and cannot be -- a right; for a right is a binding, morally based claim we make on others on our status as morally governed creatures. (You may not properly compel an unwilling person to marry you.) Any member of society who is of relevant mature years may enter into such a permanent union for procreation and child nurture with a suitable partner; e.g. incest -- and notice how neither SAR nor any other party on that side dares address the Columbia U case -- is as much a restriction as attempting to break the complementarity of the sexes. To pretend that something radically different is marriage within its proper meaning is a violation and an imposition. Set up a contract that sets each as next of kin if you wish [that would be as simple as a form one can buy in the shops or online], but do not pretend that you have a right to counterfeit marriage and demand equal recognition for the counterfeit. Far too much is at stake.kairosfocus
December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
09:07 AM
9
09
07
AM
PDT
Kindly respond to the issue of liberty vs license and the nature of marriage in light not only of universal historty until some radicals recently had a bright idea how they could exploit the confusion between the two L-words, but also the complementarity of the sexes and the requirement of procreation in an environment of stable nurture for the long term survival of the community and civilisation.
I asked you two yes/no questions in comment 526 which you have yet to answer. Once you have answered them, I will be happy to address this question.
In that context, remarks on a “breezy” writing style do not excuse further slanders and innuendos.
The problem is that I have no idea what you might take offense at next. I have tried to write in more generic terms so that I don't inadvertently offend you, without much luck. You are rather adept at perceiving insult. The only thing I can think to further do is just remian silent. Is that what you request of me?
(And be kindly reminded that you have gone so far as to suggest that the undersigned — despite explicit statements to the contrary and any number of implications that would at once show that such is slanderous to any fair-minded reader — supports the mass murder of homosexuals. That is utterly uncivil and uncalled for. Don’t ever forget that that is what you have to live down.)
I already apologized for that in comment 483. What more must I do to salve the injury to your honor?San Antonio Rose
December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
08:51 AM
8
08
51
AM
PDT
SAR: Kindly respond to the issue of liberty vs license and the nature of marriage in light not only of universal historty until some radicals recently had a bright idea how they could exploit the confusion between the two L-words, but also the complementarity of the sexes and the requirement of procreation in an environment of stable nurture for the long term survival of the community and civilisation. In that context, remarks on a "breezy" writing style do not excuse further slanders and innuendos. For the only real "evidence" you have that those who object to homosexualisaiton of marriage are enemies of liberty, is your hostile projections a la Alinsky and his wicked premise that one acts decisively only if one thinks the angels are all on one side , and only devils on the other. (And be kindly reminded that you have gone so far as to suggest that the undersigned -- despite explicit statements to the contrary and any number of implications that would at once show that such is slanderous to any fair-minded reader -- supports the mass murder of homosexuals. That is utterly uncivil and uncalled for. Don't ever forget that that is what you have to live down.) To object to a radical innovation that on good evidence would utterly destabilise our civilisation that is already teetering, and would open the doorway to persecute those who on principle and facts and conscience question such an agenda. Indeed, you inability to discern the many tyrannical and destructive agendas in the so-called Yogyakarta Principles -- despite having a critique in hand from a top flight Constitutional and International law expert -- is all too telling. Good day, madam. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
08:29 AM
8
08
29
AM
PDT
KF,
And, to the problem of evil, we must add the problem of good. If evil is real, [...] so is good,and the foundation of both has to be explained.
We haven't learned our lesson yet; knowledge of evil and good is the exclusive domain of God but we've taken it on ourselves to 'know' what's god and what's evil. Life is what it is; moral judgment of yourself or your neighbor is the 'sin'. Genesis 2:17Cabal
December 15, 2010
December
12
Dec
15
15
2010
01:27 AM
1
01
27
AM
PDT
As in, what is your response when you are willfully short changed, or cheated by a sly shopkeeper passing off substandard goods, or have your pocket picked, or your car stolen, or — God forbid — are tied up at gun-point and forced to watch your mother, wife, sister, or daughter multiply raped, slowly tortured and murdered?
Goodness gracious, I am having an attack of the vapors under the impact of such explicitly emotional manipulation.San Antonio Rose
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
05:25 PM
5
05
25
PM
PDT
kairofocus: "What we generally do not see is: “I is lion, and yuh is lunch, so stop bleating and slide down de throat nice.” Really? Wow - you must have grown up in some sort of angelic kindergarten - I see generally lots of that: where I grew up there were (and are) plenty of lions, plenty of ganging up on the lunch-lambs, plenty of tears, hurt, and unfairness going around. The reason a lion is generally motivated to play fair is by fear of punishment - either by parents/teachers or by retaliation of the hurt party. "At least, when we are at stake — we too often try to find wriggle room when fairness does not fit our agenda." Yes, that's exactly what I am talking about! Most people don't actually play fair when it advances their own cause and they think they can get away with it. People are constantly "willfully short changed, or cheated by a sly shopkeeper passing off substandard goods, or have your pocket picked, or your car stolen,..." You want to know what my reaction to it is? Obviously, that the perpetrator gained an advantage by disadvantaging me! The main reason we agree to play fair is because most of us realize that it is the only way to generally obtain a good compromise between gaining advantages and not being disadvantaged some other way (including by punishment): I do to you what I want you to do to me - it's called reciprocity. "Yes, we experience moral obligations subjectively, but we also experience awareness of external physical reality, reasoning about it and knowledge of it just as subjectively." I never implied the opposite. If Clive ever lets it out of moderation, you can read my # 532 for confirmation. "To object or imply that that which is subjectively experienced is only subjective is thus self-refuting. For that denies external reality and capacity to know it. It also implies that our minds are so delusional that we cannot trust any of their judgements" No. That which is subjectively experienced by us is obviously a reliable enough index of the external reality that we can survive in it. In other words, the more reliable the subjective index of the external reality produced by a being's senses, the more likely it will be successful in surviving and producing offspring in said reality. However, that does not make that particular subjective reality any more objective. A gutworm's subjective reality is extremely different from a dolphin's, from a human's, from a daffodills. That does not make either of these realities less reliable for the survival and reproduction potential of the respective being. But it obviously also does not make either of them "the objective reality".molch
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT
Molch:
Next you’ll find that even among those who might agree upon fairness and justice for all, definitions and perceptions of fairness and justice will vary gravely, depending on who you ask
I think you have put this very well. It is pretty much the point I have been trying to make without much success. There are great differences in how fairness and justice is seen across cultures and religions. Differences how it is viewed between denominations within a religion. Even difference in how it is viewed between sects within a denomination. Alas, there are no end to the mullahs and maharajas pointing the one true way.San Antonio Rose
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
04:27 PM
4
04
27
PM
PDT
Molch: Have you raised children? Have you observed how people quarrel, and how common such patterns are? "You unfair me . . ." "No, (a) is you unfair me, and/or (b) is not really unfair becos . . . " What we generally do not see is: "I is lion, and yuh is lunch, so stop bleating and slide down de throat nice." In both cases you will see that there is a universal consensus that we are bound by a premise of fairness. At least,when we are at stake -- we too often try to find wriggle room when fairness does not fit our agenda. (E.g. try out: date rape and no does not really mean no, just keep trying and if necessary slip her a little Mickey Finn.) In short, I indeed point to a universal consensus, one that you yourself are doubtless familiar with when you are not wearing selectively hyperskeptical, dismissive spectacles. (As in, what is your response when you are willfully short changed, or cheated by a sly shopkeeper passing off substandard goods, or have your pocket picked, or your car stolen, or -- God forbid -- are tied up at gun-point and forced to watch your mother, wife, sister, or daughter multiply raped, slowly tortured and murdered? Or, put yourself in the shoes of Prof Epstein's wife at Columbia, above: is here revulsion and rage just a subjective perception she projects unto others, perhaps driven by a subtle attempt to impose her views on others? If ought is not real, it is just a might makes right jungle out there, so shut up and slide down the throat nicely, weakling. And, to the problem of evil, we must add the problem of good. If evil is real [as is a common premise in an attempted rebuttal to the concept of God], so is good,and the foundation of both has to be explained.) Yes, we experience moral obligations subjectively, but we also experience awareness of external physical reality, reasoning about it and knowledge of it just as subjectively. To object or imply that that which is subjectively experienced is only subjective is thus self-refuting. For that denies external reality and capacity to know it. It also implies that our minds are so delusional that we cannot trust any of their judgements. So, pick your choice: oughtness and external reality are credibly real, or else your mind is utterly delusional. And, it is certainly not just a matter of my imposing "my view" on you -- something that in this thread is loaded and laced with some pretty nasty slanders. Do you wish to associate yourself with such? GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
Clive, "What would you like to see for “valid” support for objectivity?" I haven't encountered anything yet. Since as human beings we are subjects, anything we experience, encounter, learn, etc. is necessarily subjective. So, complete "objectivity" is, in my opinion, unobtainable to us. However, there are obviously phenomena (mostly physical, clearly measurable stuff), that the vast majority of humans actually experience the same way. Those things are usually called "objective" facts or phenomena, even though we don't really experience, or know, or are even likely to ever know everything about them truly objectively. What about your own opinion on objectivity? Is the "feeling in one's heart" a useful measure of objectivity to you?molch
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT
molch,
that is quite likely the most subjective justification for an allegedly objective fact I have ever read. Your heart staunchly cries out for something. So you deduce that everybody else’s heart cries out for the exact same thing – staunchly nonetheless. And then you deduce that makes the thing desired real and objective.
What would you like to see for "valid" support for objectivity?Clive Hayden
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
02:54 PM
2
02
54
PM
PDT
kairofocus: "take the fact that our hearts so staunchly cry out for fairness and justice. That is, we are inherently conscious that we are morally bound, that is we are morally governed by an un-erasable moral law." that is quite likely the most subjective justification for an allegedly objective fact I have ever read. Your heart staunchly cries out for something. So you deduce that everybody else's heart cries out for the exact same thing - staunchly nonetheless. And then you deduce that makes the thing desired real and objective. Your first stumbling block will be to show that hearts in general cry out for fairness and justice. There are a lot of hearts that cry out for advantages for themselves, rather than fairness for all. Next you'll find that even among those who might agree upon fairness and justice for all, definitions and perceptions of fairness and justice will vary gravely, depending on who you ask... and that's just the beginning of your problems on the way to demonstrating anything like "warrant" in your claim to objectivity...molch
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
10:59 AM
10
10
59
AM
PDT
F/N: Webster's 1828: _______________ >> liberty LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.] 1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions. 2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government. 3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty. The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others. In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty. 4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe. 5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control. 6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other. Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition. 7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe. 8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court. 9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison. 10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties. To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted. To set at liberty, to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint. To be at liberty, to be free from restraint. Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals. >> >> license LI'CENSE, n. [L. licentia, from liceo, to be permitted.] 1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license. 2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum. License they mean, when they cry liberty. >> ______________kairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
10:13 AM
10
10
13
AM
PDT
An easy mistake: both Ivy League, New York, begin with "C." No apology necessary.QuiteID
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
Pardon my error of mis-rememembering! I quite understand your reaction. Forgive me. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
09:17 AM
9
09
17
AM
PDT
SAR: I note the snide insinuation, again — without justification.
Since you don't quote specifically what you are responding to, I am not sure exactly what you consider a snide insinuation. So, I have to assume it is not my little joke about MTV (did I even get a little smile out of you on that?). I am guessing it is a combination of my comment about limiting others freedom of self-determination and my reference to Animal Farm. Let me deal with both parts. On the first part, do you agree that self-determination includes the right to free association? Yes or no? On the second part, it is very clear that you believe that homosexuals do not have the right to choose the nature of their own relationships, but rather must conform to your judgment on the matter. You have elevated your judgment above theirs. That is what the animal farm quote is addressing. Do you dispute that you feel homosexuals must conform to your judgment? Yes or no? PS. On a separate note, please try to keep in mind that I have what has been described as a breezy writing style. It is much less formal than yours. I make references to commonly known ideas (like Animal Farm) instead of churning out multiple paragraphs. You don't seem to understand my writing style and have an uncanny ability to find offense where none is intended. It might do your cardiovascular system some good to keep that in mind. I'd hate to be the cause of a heart attack.San Antonio Rose
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
08:55 AM
8
08
55
AM
PDT
kairosfocus:
cf the case of the Cornell U professor in an incest case
The professor in question is at Columbia, not Cornell. I must defend the honor of Cornell, the alma mater of some members of my family.QuiteID
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
08:41 AM
8
08
41
AM
PDT
SAR: I note the snide insinuation, again -- without justification. And remember this is in a context where you have falsely accused me and people like me of all sorts of things up to and inclusing support for mass murder; for which you have had to be censured. Please look at the distinction between liberty and license just above [cf the case of the Cornell U professor in an incest case: are there justifiable limits on sexual behaviour in the public interest of the common good, and on marriage -- e.g does this prof have a right to self-determination on which he could ditch his wife and marry their daughter? why or why not?]. When you can understand and cogently state that distinction, and the distinction between rights as moral claims we may make legitimately on others based on our dignity as morally governed creatures, and "might makes right" nihilism, then we can talk. Good day GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Thank you for the link to another dictionary definition. This seems to be quite similar to the initial one you posted and doesn't appear to add anything new to the conversation. Unless you are taking an active interest in my vocabulary skills. ;)San Antonio Rose
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
07:33 AM
7
07
33
AM
PDT
PPS: Webster's definition of prejudice is equally uncorrupted, and one should read all later senses in light of his first sense. The word should never be used in any context where one is not prepared to defend its primary sense -- i.e. duties of care trump "I can find a definition to get away with smearing" games and slander tactics. (SAR: FYI.)kairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
06:20 AM
6
06
20
AM
PDT
There is the cancer in your mind, triggered by a toxic mental environment in school, in college, on MTV, in the snide needles in ever so many smart alecky comedies, on the streets, in learned institutions, in courthouses and even legislatures, exposed for all to see.
MTV is so my parent's generation.San Antonio Rose
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
04:49 AM
4
04
49
AM
PDT
So, while unfortunate, it is no surprise that even at this late stage, SAR still cannot see that the objection we have is to the aggressive and incipiently tyrannical policy agenda of homosexualissation of marriage.
What I see is a group of people, apparently unknowingly, becoming that which they decry. In order to fight what you perceive as a radical agenda, you are prepared to take away people's right of self-determination, to make decisions for themselves. What it boils down to is that you feel your judgement is better than others, and so it needs to be imposed on a fallen world. Or, as a great thinker once wrote, "all animals are created equal, but some animals are more equal than others." You will pardon if I do not cede to you the authority you think is your due.San Antonio Rose
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
04:47 AM
4
04
47
AM
PDT
F/N: Evolutionary materialist amorality deprogramming 101, session 1. Will Hawthorne has put his finger right on the cancerous sore, and cuts it open cleanly: ____________ >>Assume (per impossibile) that atheistic naturalism [COMMENT: = evolutionary materialism] is true. Assume, furthermore, that one can't infer an 'ought' from an 'is' [COMMENT: the 'is' being in this context physicalist: matter-energy, space- time, chance and mechanical forces; in short ought, if it is at all objective and compelling -- e.g. we OUGHT to be fair and to respect other people whether or no we agree with them (and so should not slander them, SAR) -- has to be grounded in an ultimate reality that is good in the full moral sense]. (Richard Dawkins and many other atheists should grant both of these assumptions.) Given our second assumption, there is no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer an 'ought'. And given our first assumption, there is nothing that exists over and above the natural world; the natural world is all that there is. It follows logically that, for any action you care to pick, there's no description of anything in the natural world from which we can infer that one ought to refrain from performing that action. [COMMENT: That is, we see that the direct implication of evolutionary materialism is amorality] Add a further uncontroversial assumption: an action is permissible if and only if it's not the case that one ought to refrain from performing that action. (This is just the standard inferential scheme for formal deontic logic.) We've conformed to standard principles and inference rules of logic and we've started out with assumptions that atheists have conceded in print. And yet we reach the absurd conclusion: therefore, for any action you care to pick, it's permissible to perform that action. {COMMENT: Evolutionary materialism here reduces itself to moral absurdity, and implies both that liberty equates to license and that it is might that makes right, so that if one thinks one has enough power to get away with anything, s/he is free to do it.] If you'd like, you can take this as the meat behind the slogan 'if atheism is true, all things are permitted'. For example if atheism is true, every action Hitler performed was permissible. [COMMENT: This is not a fallacious appeal to Hitler. It is pointing out that on the above grounds, it is a LOGICAL consequent of evolutionary materialism that Hitler's actions have the same moral weight as all other actions: zero. For, on that premise, the set of what we ought to do and the set of what we ought not to do are equally empty. So ought and ought not, being empty sets, are not even in contradiction. The absurdity that results is aptly exposed by pointing to one of the last few cases where there is a remnant of cultural consensus on morality.] Many atheists don't like this consequence of their worldview. But they cannot escape it and insist that they are being logical at the same time. Now, we all know that at least some actions are really not permissible (for example, racist actions). Since the conclusion of the argument denies this, there must be a problem somewhere in the argument. Could the argument be invalid? No. The argument has not violated a single rule of logic and all inferences were made explicit. Thus we are forced to deny the truth of one of the assumptions we started out with. [COMMENT: if a valid argument is unsound, it has to be due to a false premise.] That means we either deny atheistic naturalism or (the more intuitively appealing) principle that one can't infer 'ought' from 'is'. [Emphases added, and comments.] >> ______________ Now, this is an unusual type of cancer surgery: exposing and excising a mind cancer. The patient has to be fully conscious, take the pain of the incision, and then make the decision to cut out and remove the exposed stinking and destructive absurdity, before it utterly corrupts his or her mind. SAR et al, the decision is yours. There is the cancer in your mind, triggered by a toxic mental environment in school, in college, on MTV, in the snide needles in ever so many smart alecky comedies, on the streets, in learned institutions, in courthouses and even legislatures, exposed for all to see. What are you going to do about it?kairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
04:46 AM
4
04
46
AM
PDT
PS: Evolutionary materialist nihilism and related radical relativism benumb the conscience and endarken the mind. As a result, those who have been educated under its dark shadow will find it hard indeed to see beyond the darkness they think is light and the artfu8lly calculated, misleading Plato's Cave shadow-shows they confuse for reeality. So, while unfortunate, it is no surprise that even at this late stage, SAR still cannot see that the objection we have is to the aggressive and incipiently tyrannical policy agenda of homosexualissation of marriage. She and others of her ilk have been cleverly and ruthlessly manipulated to project the accusation of hate -- in her case, up to the slander that we support the mass murder of people living with or struggling to overcome objectively distorted same-sex attractions and/or associated unhealthy and inherently immoral behaviours. We hope that, some day, she and others of her ilk will wake up enough to throw off the chains of mental slavery and will rise up and reject the fallacies that have misled them in the name of education, science, news, tolerance and even freedom. (Just for starters, liberty is not to be equated to license (note sense 2). [Notice how I have had to reach as far back as 1828 to find a clean, clear, uncorrupted definition with a good educational discussion. Bookmark that site, folks!]) While Google and the like obviously are firms dominated by their California environment, and I would think it unwise for a serious Christian person or another person who stalwartly stands for traditional principles of morality to work for them under present circumstances, on unequal yoking grounds, they have created open information technologies that by the providence of God are proof to censorship; thank God for the Internet, and even for the video and related multimedia technologies so largely pioneered by the utterly filthy and destructive pornography industry. So, we "borrow from the Egyptians" on the debt they owe but do not acknowledge to the Judaeo-Christian foundations of modern liberty and democracy, to stand in the storm ahead, and to lead the recovery beyond it.kairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
04:10 AM
4
04
10
AM
PDT
Onlookers (and MF): Several things are clear from this thread, some of them rather sad. First, we can see that the inherent subjectivism, relativism and underlying amorality of evolutionary materialism undermine public morality, law and justice. Notice from 377 above how a trained philosopher, MF, was reduced to trying to argue that morality -- though inherently [and in his view, apparently only] subjective -- is "significant." It is therefore deeply saddening to have to note how, instead of correcting and admonishing uncivil resort to slander, he subtly encouraged the Alinsky, all angels on my side, all devils on the other slanderous trifecta rhetorical tactic: distract, distort, demonise. In short, on evidence we can all see evolutionary materialsitic moral subjectivism tempts even the best to amoral tactics. (Precisely as Plato warned 2,300 years ago in his The Laws, Bk X.) Truly sad. Instead, a far wiser resort is to take the fact that our hearts so staunchly cry out for fairness and justice. That is, we are inherently conscious that we are morally bound, that is we are morally governed by an un-erasable moral law. Thus, we have good reason -- I daresay, warrant [as opposed to prof beyond all doubt and dispute] -- to infer that we are the creatures of a Moral Lawgiver. Which also fits in with the need for a necessary being to explain our credibly contingent observed cosmos, as well as the best explanation of the finely balanced operating pint of its physics that supports C-chemistry cell based life, and the evident design in that life. Namely, design is strongly apparent -- note Dawkins' telling admission of that, even as he tries to brush it aside: "designoid" -- for the excellent reason that it is real. Notwithstanding the above, our civilisation's moral foundations are under siege from a destructive ideology flying the false flag of science. [NB: In fact evolutionary materialism is plainly an a priori ideology imposed on science and distorting it.] So, if our civilisation's moral foundations are to be rescued, that stranglehold must be broken decisively. And since the advocates of false-flag "science, falsely so called" are apt to accuse those who object to their capture of science that they are would-be theocratic tyrants, it is entirely legitimate to point to the foundations, fallacies and dangers of their atheistical ideological agenda. Including the inconvenient little fact that it was so designed from the outset. For that, let us remind ourselves of the already cited (but conveniently ignored) October 13, 1880 letter of Charles Darwin to Edward Bibbins Aveling (a physician, and Karl Marx's son- in- law):
. . . though I am a strong advocate for free thought [NB: "free-thought" is an old synonym for skepticism, agnosticism or atheism] on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against christianity & theism produce hardly any effect on the public; & freedom of thought is best promoted by the gradual illumination of men’s minds, which follows from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, & I have confined myself to science. I may, however, have been unduly biassed by the pain which it would give some members of my family [NB: especially his wife, Emma], if I aided in any way direct attacks on religion.
I t so happens that life, marriage and family, and freedom of conscience and expression are the current foci for the evolutionary materialist attack on the moral foundations of our civlisation. "Free thought" having been joined to "free love," and then to gender confusion, marriage and family have been gravely wounded. Now, the homosexualist allies of he evolutionary materialists wish to make the injury fatal, by abusing the power of law to redefine marriage "against nature." They know this will provoke major conflict, but calculate that hey will be able to win in the relevant media, education, medical-psychological, court and lawmaking institutions. So, they outright intend to put our consciences and souls under bondage to unjust law. And, to accuse us of hate if we object, thus bringing to play persecution under a rising tide of extremely dangerous hate speech thought police law. So, when we see a "gay-friendly" major corporation such as Apple resort to abuse of its monopoly power to censor the iPad application that elicits signatures for the Manhattan Declaration, that is a warning of what is in store if such ideologues gain more power. My own estimate -- and I see VJT agrees -- is that our civilisation is mortally wounded, and is looking at a dark night of chaos, loss of liberty, disintegration and tyranny. Already, storm clouds brew on the horizon, and clouds of vultures are flying in to join those already circling. It is time for a sober re-think of where we are headed, and what we must do to survive the terrible storm ahead, then recover some semblance of a civilisation worth living in and if necessary falling in the defense of. (If a civilisation does not have something in it that is strong enough to compel a critical mass of courageous men to be willing to stand, fight and if needs be die for it, historically it is doomed. I assure you, evolutionary materialistic nihilism might motivate those hoping to grab control of and loot a going concern civilisation, but it has nothing in it to compel courageous, morally driven commitment.) Such are the stark issues that now face us. I strongly recommend a reflective reading of Acts 27, as we prepare to be stalwart men and women of valour in the wild and bloody ride of a terrible civlisational storm. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 14, 2010
December
12
Dec
14
14
2010
04:09 AM
4
04
09
AM
PDT
to the attempt to irreversibly subvert a foundational and stabilising institution of our civilisation.
I guess I am surprised you don't you find Google's recognition of same sex relationships on equal ground with heterosexual marriages as a provocation. Or is worrisome, but not provocative enough to take action about?San Antonio Rose
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
04:30 PM
4
04
30
PM
PDT
F/N: Given yet another unfortunately snide insinuation, I need to underscore that the issue with Apple is that it has violated the trust of those who bought a closed computer system. Google may well have similar ideological views, but an open system is inherently resistant to censorship; like the alphabet we use is pagan in roots [probably invented by some pretty unwholesome Phoenecians . . . human sacrifice and all that], but it is an open system. HP, too -- my favourite calculator company [ever since a fondly remembered HP 21 "Hi, Penny, miss you!"] and printer company -- has very similar views, but again, it is not so far as I know indulging censorship. Again, my policy-level objections are to censorship and similar suppressions of freedom of conscience, and to the attempt to irreversibly subvert a foundational and stabilising institution of our civilisation. I have a concern for those caught up in an objectively disordered pattern of sexual expression or attraction [including some of my nearest and dearest], but not a hostility to them as people. I hope SAR can stretch her mind enough to understand that. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Trib: Thanks for the link. Even wiki has to acknowledge (grudgingly) what was going on. Gkairosfocus
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
KF, until now I had never heard about the Ugandan martyrs. Thanks.tribune7
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
08:20 AM
8
08
20
AM
PDT
Allanius: You are right. Clipping: _______________ >> a professor of political science at Columbia University was arrested and charged with having carried on a three-year-long sexual affair with his own daughter, who was age 20 when this incestuous involvement allegedly began in 2006. It is of course necessary to caution that Professor David Epstein must be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law . . . . The criminal accusations against Epstein were evidently made in the context of a recent split with his wife, who is also a Columbia University professor. Epstein's lawyer told the student newspaper, "We're asking his friends in the Columbia community to support him and give him the benefit of the doubt." Whatever the facts, however, many seem unable to understand why sex between a man and his adult daughter -- which, according to police, was "consensual" in the Epstein case -- should be illegal and punishable by up to four years in prison under New York law. "Wait, why is consensual incest a crime? It might not be appealing to everyone, but if they're adults and they consent, who cares what they do?" wrote one commenter on the Columbia student newspaper site. Similar comments were made at the Huffington Post: "It is kinda sick, but I think a four year prison sentence is extreme -- considering they are both consenting adults." Tracy Clark-Flory of Salon wrote that the accusation against Epstein "isn't a clear-cut case of child abuse." That kind of thinking has apparently penetrated to the very highest levels of the American judiciary, as University of Wisconsin law professor Ann Althouse noted. In the Supreme Court's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision, which struck down a state law against sodomy, Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion described "an emerging awareness that liberty gives substantial protection to adult persons in deciding how to conduct their private lives in matters pertaining to sex." The court overturned its own precedent in the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick case. In Bowers, which had upheld Georgia's anti-sodomy law, then-Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote that there had been laws against homosexual behavior "throughout the history of Western civilization" and that such laws were "firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards." In Lawrence, Kennedy cited that statement by Burger and rejected it as dubious, contending that the Bowers precedent "demeans the lives of homosexual persons." Dissenting in Lawrence, Justice Antonin Scalia warned that the majority ruling would "have far-reaching implications beyond this case" -- specifically identifying consensual incest between adults as one area where Kennedy's "emerging awareness" doctrine might undermine existing law. Has the "emerging awareness" emerged that far? If we have finally repudiated "Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards" as a guiding principle of American law, what would happen if Epstein were convicted and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court? Could Justice Kennedy find any reason to uphold such a conviction? Perhaps so, but some at Columbia University apparently don't think what Epstein is accused of doing was wrong enough to be illegal, which suggests that the liberal philosophy of the American elite has led us a very long way down a particular road -- paved, we are told, with good intentions. >> __________________ Moral spinout, driven by amorality, heading for a CRASH. Can the spin be recovered from in time? If the rationale for homosexualising marriage a la Yogyakarta is embedded in law, would that make it any easier to reverse the spin? Let us ponder the issue . . . Thanks A, excellent catch. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 13, 2010
December
12
Dec
13
13
2010
07:13 AM
7
07
13
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4 5 21

Leave a Reply