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
KF:
Let me put the matter this way: it is those who prpose a radical modification to a fundamental social institution who properly have the burden of proof that they will do more good than harm.
People are clannish. They distrust, fear, and even hate those that aren't part of their clan. And that fear leads them to ostracize those outsiders. But, each successive generation seems to rise more and more above such fear. You can see the change as we go from the generation that enslaved your people to the generation that "merely" segregated them to the generation that elected an African-American to the most powerful job on earth. And, as we go forward, each generation will have less and less fear of homosexuals and accept them for who they are rather than who we would want them to be. If you think it is a good thing that we hold on to that hate and fear, then all I can say is that there is no reason to continue talking with you.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
06:27 AM
6
06
27
AM
PDT
SAR: You have now resorted to trivialising of correction of slander. That, sadly, speaks volumes. this is a serious matter. As to your repeated questions, what is substsantial in such has already been adequately answered by the undersigned and by others, including just above. Let me put the matter this way: it is those who prpose a radical modification to a fundamental social institution who properly have the burden of proof that they will do more good than harm. Already, as previously noted, there is widespread sexual chaos, marital and family breakdown, as the MD addresses. The problem with the proposed homosexualisation of marriage is that it arguably will make the breakdown irreversible, by acting under colour of law. On failing in that duty of showing that the proposal is genuinely progressive, the homosexualist advocates have subverted the language of "rights," in a contgext where it is evident that for many of them, a right is little more than the imposition of the powerful. That is a further threat to our civilisation. My estimate is, the damage is already mortal, and the consequences will -- absent a miracle of reformation -- be accelerated by entrenching the agenda in the Yogyakarta principles in law. But, regardless of such a pessimistic prognosis, it is duty to point out the march of folly. To see why, kindly read Ac 27 to see how a manipulated democratic polity in miniature had to handle the crash after first foolishly brushing aside prudent counsels and corrections. I think enough has been said for now, and I must go on to other matters; so, good day. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
06:11 AM
6
06
11
AM
PDT
KF at 387:
As has been pointed out, the wider, deeper consequences will take 20 – 40 years. That is one root of my assessment that our civilization is already mortally wounded and so confused that it cannot even properly evaluate mortal perils.
I would think, you of all people, would appreciate the overblown nature of such rhetoric when applied to the case of a minority group seeking access to freedoms and benefits previously reserved only for powerful majorities. Sad, really. But, I can see I will get no where with you. Let me offer the younger generations perspective, though I have no hope you'll take it to heart. You are concerned with your rights of conscience and I agree that those rights should be preserved. However, your means to accomplish this is, in part, by denying homosexuals the opportunity to form social contracts and families with the person of their choice. If the only way you can think to preserve your rights of conscience is by denying a minority (reported at only 1 out of every 15) the rights of their conscience to a minority, then it is you that is employing "might makes right." Further, if you feel it necessary to deny people the right to live their own lives, make their own decisions, and form their own families, then you are no less an authoritarian than those radicals you see hiding behind every tree.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
Oh, KF, don't be so prickly. We are all friends here. Answer two questions for me: 1. You want to strengthen marriage and family. Yes or no? 2. You feel stopping gay marriage is part of that effort. Yes or no? If you answer yes to both questions, then I haven't twisted your words in comment 385. I have merely restated them in a way that you don't like. You shouldn't be all indignant because my writing style is more direct and less mellifluous than yours. You still haven't answered my question regarding what the negative consequences were in countries that have instituted gay marriage (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.) This is the fourth time I've asked.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
05:36 AM
5
05
36
AM
PDT
F/N: perhaps you have not been following the rising tide of censorship and loss of freedom in precisely the same countries, driven by the agenda so aptly expressed in the so-called Yogyakarta principles? [People have been actually publicly and permanently silenced by de facto court order in Canada! A pastor in Sweden who dared to preach from Rom 1 was sentenced to gaol and was only saved form that fate by the intervention of the Czech representative att her EU human rights commission. Orphanages ahve been shut down in defiance of High Court rulings in the UK, on a twisted reading of "antidiscrimination" law. Just this year, an evangelist responding civilly to a heckler in the UK was falsely accused and arrested then charged by a homosexual activist policemen. Already textbooks are radically redefining family and gender roles, the better to inculcate sexual anarchy in the next generation -- this one is not confused and chaotic enough it seems. And more, you can simply read above to get a cross section. And, I hereby endorse Stephen B's remarks above especially.] As has been pointed out, the wider, deeper consequences will take 20 - 40 years. That is one root of my assessment that our civilization is already mortally wounded and so confused that it cannot even properly evaluate mortal perils.kairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
05:29 AM
5
05
29
AM
PDT
Onlookers: Pardon: the onward links to the book Democracy in America were bad. Here is a better online copy. __________ SAR: Kindly stop twisting my words into strawmen laced with ad hominems that you ignite. The underlying issue is -- based on the known complementarity of the sexes and the requisites of stable child nurture and the long experience of humanity on the matter -- what is marriage, and what is family by extension of the procreational function of marriage. Arbitrary attempts to by pretended legislative fiat impose what is against our creation order as morally governed, sexually reproducing creatures found in complementary sexes as equivalent to what is founded on what is, will lead to chaos and to tyranny. Indeed, already we see hateful false accusations of bigotry for challenging so bold an attempt, and censorship in defence of the usurpation. Worse, we see that the very foundation of morality is at stake in the twisting of the key term, "rights." Until and unless the serious issues are addressed and objectively and fairly settled on the merits, we have every justification to see what is going on as a radical agenda based on an amoral worldview and the arrogance of the anti-ethics of the will to power, expressed in: "might makes right." So, to see you again resorting to the rhetoric of distraction, distortion, denigration and polarising abuse simply tells us that the concern that we are dealing with a destructive agenda is well-founded. Please, stop and think again. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
05:18 AM
5
05
18
AM
PDT
When families are strong and stable, we have independent-minded people in equally strong local communities and with solid community-based non-governmental civil society organisations — churches, professional and business groups, clubs, societies etc — with a lot of effective leaders.
So, in order to support strong and stable families, you feel you must stop other people from forming families which you do not approve of? That seems to be the Ned and Jimbo approach to saving families. By the way, you have probably forgotten what with all the parallel conversations you are holding, but you never answered my question regarding what the negative consequences were in countries that have instituted gay marriage (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, South Africa, Spain and Sweden.)San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
05:00 AM
5
05
00
AM
PDT
SAR, Once you get all this off your chest, you can then be still. When are wise enough to reach that point in this matter, set your stabbing questions aside and please consider addressing in earnest the elephant in the room - the oh-so obvious complimetarity of the sexes. Don't even bother now, it would be a waste (the old addage there is nothing more elusive thn a half fixed problem). It is clear for now you need to exercise your spleen. Have at it.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
04:57 AM
4
04
57
AM
PDT
PS: SAR, the issue is not at all one of mere huffing and puffing over what we tut-tuttingly do not approve of in others -- BTW a typical, trivisalising expression of exactly the relativisation and subjectivisation of principle that is destroying our civilisation. Please do not project airs of condescending hypocrisy and bigotry on us, the better to dismiss serious issues. The matters at stake are far too serious for that resort to the trifecta fallacy: red herring distractors, led away to ad hominem-soaked strawman caricatures, ignited to choke, cloud, poison and polarise the atmosphere. Have you read the Manhattan Declaration and the critique of the Yogyakarta declaration? (Neither of which is condescendingly hypocritical or bigoted.) If not, kindly do so now and respond on the merits to the concerns raised. Then, also address the issue in this thread's original post: censorship, which is a first step to a thought police state.kairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
04:54 AM
4
04
54
AM
PDT
SAR: When families are strong and stable, we have independent-minded people in equally strong local communities and with solid community-based non-governmental civil society organisations -- churches, professional and business groups, clubs, societies etc -- with a lot of effective leaders. (Please read Democracy in America for details.) Politicians have to address that reality in a democratic republic especially when it is expressed in the teeth of a sound constitution. But, if family stability can be undermined (leading to ill-adjusted, atomised people looking to mass media, the street and political messiahs for family substitutes), and the foundation of a solid moral consensus can be undermined through radical relativism, the constitution can be subverted and you now face unjust judges driven by amoral worldviews and politicians who have messiah complexes. Chaos: anomie and anarchy. And, ever, the answer to chaos in which "every man does what is right in his own eyes" (every man from gutter-most to uttermost) -- a very relevant Biblical reference -- has been:
1 Sam 8:1 In his old age Samuel appointed his sons as judges over Israel . . . 3 But his sons did not follow1 his ways. Instead, they made money dishonestly, accepted bribes, and perverted justice.2 4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and approached Samuel at Ramah.note 5 They said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons don’t follow your ways. So now appoint over us a king to lead us, just like all the other nations have.” . . . . 10 So Samuel spoke all the words of the LORD to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “Here are the policies of the king who will rule over you: He will conscript your sons and put them in his chariot forces and in his cavalry; they will run in front of his chariot. 12 He will appoint for himself leaders of thousands and leaders of fifties, as well as those who plow his ground, reap his harvest, and make his weapons of war and his chariot equipment. 13 He will take your daughters to be ointment makers, cooks, and bakers. 14 He will take your best fields and vineyards and give them to his own servants. 15 He will demand a tenth of your seed and of the produce of your vineyards and give it to his administrators and his servants. 16 He will take your male and female servants, as well as your best cattle and your donkeys, and assign them for his own use. 17 He will demand a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will be his servants. 18 In that day you will cry out because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, but the LORD won’t answer you in that day.” 19 But the people refused to heed Samuel’s warning. Instead they said, “No! There will be a king over us! 20 We will be like all the other nations. Our king will judge us and lead us and fight our battles.” [NET]
Sounds familiar? Amorality, anarchy and chaos lead to a crying out for a political saviour. But, political messianism ever ends in tyranny. For, it is a species of idolatry. Resemblance to the course of our civilisation over the past 100 years is not coincidental. Nor is resemblance to current events. Imagine a day in which 10% tax rates -- true, riding on top of a tithe that served to fund many governance activities through the Levites, the priests and the tabernacle -- were seen as excessive and oppressive! GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
04:42 AM
4
04
42
AM
PDT
Zephyr, thank you for your nice words. My parents always said I was a precocious child when I was little. I guess, though, my generation isn't hung up so much on ostracizing people who are different. And we think if we are going to improve society, then we do so by improving our own behavior and actions, not huffing and puffing indignantly about what we don't approve of in others. Motes and beams, if you will.San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
04:28 AM
4
04
28
AM
PDT
PS: MF, I found it quite ironic that in a blog entitled "In Moderation Celebrating being placed in moderation on Uncommon Descent (now happily rescinded)," my comment linking my response just above was either disallowed at the outset or put in moderation without notice to me.kairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
04:20 AM
4
04
20
AM
PDT
StephenB:
In like fashion, the United States Constitution is no safeguard if the nation’s leaders will not honor it or conform to its principles. Thus, the character of the people and the quality of its institutions, the most important of which is the nuclear family, are more important than the Constitution.
You didn't really answer the question as to how a traditional family is able to stop the immense power of a state, but I suppose this is close enough. So, it is your position that gay people are of low character and any family unit they may form is of lower quality?San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
04:17 AM
4
04
17
AM
PDT
VJT:
The best we can do now is to lower the bar to the next sustainable threshold: monogamy. Most people still strongly support that. Gay marriage would shatter that norm, so we should fight it tooth and nail, while we can.
Why do you say this? Do you have statistics that show that, in countries where it is legal, gay marriages end in divorce at a higher rate than traditional marriages?San Antonio Rose
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT
Vivid (and MF): Excellent observations; thanks for the kind words too. I observe MF's blog post, which starts out:
Those who believe that morality is objective often respond by saying that the alternative makes morality trivial, using phrases like “makes right and wrong a popularity poll”, “reduces morality to a matter of opinion”, “what you ought to do is no more than a fashion”, “might is right” etc.
This sets up a strawman. The objection, MF is that -- as has been pointed out ever since Plato in The Laws, Bk X, 360 BC -- evolutionary materialistic views make for AMORALITY and nihilism, creating a war in the culture driven by those who think that the highest right is might. By neatly changing that into the quesiton of trivizlisation, the real issue -- which the case in point shows is anything but trivial: CENSORSHIP and evident subversion of foundational inst6itutions of our civlisation -- is trivialised. Not good enough, MF. You are a trained philosopher and so you know the force of the IS- OUGHT gap. The question is not at all comparable to your "this movie is funny," or C S Lewis' counter-example: "I abhor prunes." Nor does your conclusion even begin to relate to the issue of our being morally governed creatures: "In the right context a subjective issue has all the importance of an objective issue and takes on many of the trappings of an objective issue." Moral issues are inevitably subjective, as do all matters of opinion and warrant; for it is subjects, live minded, enconscienced beings, who must address them. BUT THAT DOES NOT PREVENT THEM FROM ALSO BEING OBJECTIVE. And, in particular, as the thread above abundantly shows, issues of fairness, rights and the like are by consensus found to be binding. That is a fact of our observation as much as any that we make by using eyes, hands, ears, or noses. We find ourselves morally obligated, and we find that we are therefore morally governed. That points to a binding moral law, and onward to a Law-Giver. It also grounds our rights -- the crux of fairness or justice -- as binding moral claims we make on others in light of our inherent dignity and purpose as creatures. And, on such a view, there is an IS who grounds OUGHT: the necessary being who is Creator and is by inherent character good. (This decisively answers the attempt to extend the Euthyphro dilemma from its proper target, pagan, limited gods, to the Creator.) By sharpest contrast, the evolutionary materialistic view is forced to try to explain reality on ises that cannot ground oughts: matter, energy, space and time. The most that can be said is that moral judgements are subjective, and have no ultimate significance. That is, the view is inherently amoral and has no resources in it to stand off ruthless nihilism that thinks and acts in terms of "might makes 'right' . . ." Indeed, in the century just past, it was a favourite worldview choice of just such nihilists. As I have previously pointed out at UD, it is also inherently self-referentially incoherent on grounding the credibility of our minds. For that too is only a matter of subjectivity driven by the accidents of genetic mutation, selection forces of accidental environments, and similarly accidental socio-cultural settings. In short, the evolutionary materialist implications on subjectivity of mind and morals end up in self-contradiction and undermines not only morality but science, reason and rationality itself. Our culture needs to think again, but is most disinclined to do so in its current state. Better look up some online lessons in Chinese. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
03:53 AM
3
03
53
AM
PDT
Z #370 You make your point. I, for one, agree with the core of it. Speaking (IMHO) from the Western tradition, if Christianity had been doing it's "job" then Darwinism would have never found root. However, that has nothing to do with the scientifically observable facts supporting ID. The modern argument from Design wins every time it leads with the evidence. My older brother (whom is a gentleman of the highest order, which I love with all my heart) converted to Christianity very late in life. It was not too long thereafter he was suddenly cross with the pastor of his church. The pastor had stuck his nose where it was not welcome, nor necessary. I remember clearly my brother dropping his head and looking at me over the rims of his glasses. He said "being a Christian is being a follower of Jesus Christ - it has nothing whatsoever to do with following the men who follow Jesus Christ". Clarity counts.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
03:52 AM
3
03
52
AM
PDT
MF 372 Mark you have been on this blog long enough to know there is a full range of opinions from ID proponents on a vast variety of issues. The caricature of a monolithic hord "Lying for Jesus" has never been true, and never will be - no matter how often your side repeats the words. The portrayal is a strategic placemat for the simple fact that your side cannot produce any evidence whatsoever that information is a phenomena reducible to physical law.Upright BiPed
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
03:22 AM
3
03
22
AM
PDT
Zephyr: Playing with rhetorical matches can get dangerous in unexpected ways. The Creationism in a cheap tuxedo talking point is a red herring led away to a strawman soaked in ad hominems slander from the Alinskyite (communistic) Rules for Radicals playbook -- a typical "I can get away with it" behaviour of the ruthlessly amoral in pursuit of an agenda that cannot stand up on its merits. Precisely what we are objecting to and concerned about in this thread. As in, we can make an even better argument about the a priori, amoral evolutionary materialists -- we can list them: Dawkins, Lewontin, Scott of NCSE, Forrest of the same NCSE and the New Orleans Humanists, the late Sagan, the uncivil prof from Minnesota who thought desecrating a communion host and posting the picture was a way to make a scientific point, and many, many more . . . -- who are hijacking science in pursuit of transforming western civlilisation into a suicidally self-destructive atheistical culture. (This thread, in other words is relevant to the question of cultural and policy impacts of evolutionary materialism, which is propped up by the pretence that by a priori imposition of materialism, "science" can be deemed a pillar of such materialism: the wolf in a lab coat issue. That we are here talking about a case of CENSORSHIP is highly revealing on this.) And, the problem goes right back to Darwin, as we can see from the following Oct 13, 1880 letter he wrote 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 [in other words, there is a worldview level cultural agenda here, presented in self-congratulatory terms]. 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.
The question of whether the evidence of life and he fine-tuning of the cosmos points to design as best explanation is an empirical one, not a question of imposed worldviews. It can and should be addressed on the scientific, empirical merits. And, across the long run of history -- absent imposition of a priori materialism by the back door of so-called methodological naturalism -- the consensus of informed thinkers is that the evidence strongly favours design. For instance, can you explain the origin of language, codes, algorithms and the machinery to effect it in the living cell, starting with chance plus necessity only in Darwin's warm little pond or an equivalent modern scenario? Complex information systems and their underlying artificial languages routinely and without exception, are seen to be the product of design. And once that threshold is crossed, we have every right to also infer tha the further increments of complexity to account for body plans is equally designed. Similarly, when we see just how carefully balanced the observed cosmos is, to make C-chemistry cell based life that uses proteins as workhorse molecules is, that points to design as its best explanation (even in the case of suggested multiverse speculations, as we have to account for the cosmos baking bread factory that bakes up life-facilitating sub-cosmi, not burned hockey pucks or messed of half-baked dough). To deal with the matter of the cheap tuxedo NCSE talking point on the merits, cf. the UD Weak Argument Correctives, no 5. So, kindly lay off motive-mongering ad hominem attack games. Then, can you kindly provide a sound basis for morality on the evident evolutionary materialistic views you are in effect defending by using talking points above. Also, you need show us how we need have no serious concern that we are seeing the thin edge of a Yogyakarta homosexualist- materialist- amorality- nihilist wedge that ends in tyranny over the conscience. (And using a few superlatives on the talking points raised by someone else will not do.) GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
03:18 AM
3
03
18
AM
PDT
vividbleau #359 I have to deal with objection so many times I wrote a small piece about it which I have just moved onto my blog - subjective does not mean trivial.markf
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
02:59 AM
2
02
59
AM
PDT
#370 zephyr in fact if I were a Darwinian blogger I would make hay with this thread here at uncommondescent Yes - I was tempted! See my first comment #35. I take some of that comment back now. The mask has not slipped completely. A number of ID proponents have made it clear that they do not approve of this moralising on other people's sex lives. It must take a fair amount of determination to profess a different opinion to the bulk of the ID supporters on this issue - congratulations.markf
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
02:24 AM
2
02
24
AM
PDT
On a minor point though: SanAntonioRose: “Actually the main safeguard against a tyrannical state is The Constitution in general, and the Second Amendment in particular.” StephenB wrote in response: "Clearly, the Constitution and the Second Amendment play important roles in safeguarding our freedoms, however, it is the willingness of the populace to promote, support, and defend the Constitution that matters most." On this point I agree with StephenB. Humanity can often get caught up in an idealistic and naive belief that because some noble sentiments are written in a constitution, it is therefore going to be followed to the letter as if it were a natural law. History shows otherwise.zephyr
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
12:45 AM
12
12
45
AM
PDT
Are we all still going to be commentating on this thread here six months from now?! Don't think the servers can handle it. #346 San Antonio Rose. Your cutting laser-like logic here is naturally ignored by our opponents. It's often the youngsters who have the sharpest minds, when not dulled by rote conditioning, petty dogma (religious or other) and silly ideologies. I'm not being condescending, I'm impressed. I think you are the youngest poster here and your rhetorical Jujutsu has earned you at least one admirer. For what it's worth (not much, if anything at all to true believers) and I write as an IDist and no liberal, not even remotely (although of course I will be perceived as one because people's sexuality and consensual sexual choices are not factors that I think are gonna bring down Western civilization, or what passes for it) and the Darwinians here may disagree with me likewise (which is fine), I will tell you that the deep-seated resistance to ID in our culture has very little to do with the science: the merits or otherwise of IC, the Cambrian Explosion and whether it can be reconciled with neo-Darwinism or not, and icons of evolution that have been exaggerated or misrepresented or otherwise etc. Very few people have the time or inclination to follow all these debates on evolution seriously. The enthrallment to the neo-Darwinian synthesis has a lot to do with the understandable knee-jerk resistance and reaction to bible-belt fundamentalism and everything associated with it. Personally I think this is an error of throwing out the baby with the bathwater, nevertheless this reaction is there for a reason. It didn't come out of a vaccuum. Atheism, secularism, hence the necessity for neo-Darwinism, is the reaction to this kind of sanctimonious "moralistic" preaching. They are reacting to you lot, they bounce off of you, and my point is you give them plenty to react against. I'm not saying this is the only reason for atheism and the necessity for neo-Darwinism (ignoring the complex issues surrounding theistic evolutionists here), not at all, just that it is a major major reason. There are other reasons of course. It's complex. And so when someone like me comes along and says ID is not Creationism, Darwinian minds are already closed because of what they are reacting to. In fact if I were a Darwinian blogger I would make hay with this thread here at uncommondescent. Ironically I could sometimes do a better job of conflating Creationism with ID than the likes of Novella, Myers, Dennett, Rosenau, Shermer, Brayton, Nickel and others at CSI, AHA, NCSE etc who don't always keep their fingers on the pulse and are so fast asleep at the wheel, likewise too busy preaching to the choir. Hypothetically if any person were to remark to me face to face, "hey zephyr, if ID isn't Creationism in a cheap tuxedo, explain this EXACT thread then at a so-called leading ID blog. How can I distinguish this rhetoric from what I can hear in small-town bible-belt America every Sunday from the preacher or any Christian fundamentalist website, radio station etc" And I respond sheepishly "uh you can't distinguish between them on this heavily commented thread at a leading major ID blog I admit, but let me explain although it will take like half an hour 'cause it's complex and convoluted an..'' Darwinian rolls his eyes, responds "okaaay zephyr thanks for that, appreciate your honesty, but I don't have half an hour, I have to fetch the kids from soccer practice, cook dinner for them and finish going over the budget reports for work tomorrow and then I want to catch Leno, just relax, life is short after all". "Uh okay", I sheepishly respond. I don't think *some* leading ID figures have made a conscious, deliberate and dare I say it lazy decision to preach to the choir and go beyond the science into old-time religion and all associated with it, but they have done so nevertheless (I just don't think they can help themselves at all frankly). Nevertheless it is counter-productive, very safe and lazy. And it's a lot worse than that too. vjtorley and gang: yes I know you think the Darwinians are fleeing from THE TRUTH (ie Christianity), well you would.zephyr
December 11, 2010
December
12
Dec
11
11
2010
12:25 AM
12
12
25
AM
PDT
---SanAntonioRose: "Actually the main safeguard against a tyrannical state is The Constitution in general, and the Second Amendment in particular." Clearly, the Constitution and the Second Amendment play important roles in safeguarding our freedoms, however, it is the willingness of the populace to promote, support, and defend the Constitution that matters most. Here is an analogy: A merchant's warranty or guarantee of quality [analogous to the Constitution] is thought to be a safeguard for the customer who may purchase a defective product or service that doesn't deliver what is promised. However, it is the character of the business owner [analogous to moral people and the uprightness of the nuclear family] that matters most, because a warranty is not worth the paper it is written on if the merchant cannot or will not back it up. In like fashion, the United States Constitution is no safeguard if the nation's leaders will not honor it or conform to its principles. Thus, the character of the people and the quality of its institutions, the most important of which is the nuclear family, are more important than the Constitution.StephenB
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
10:57 PM
10
10
57
PM
PDT
QuiteID (#353, 364) Thank you for your questions. There are two reasons why I would oppose all legal punishment for homosexuality. First, criminalizing the practice might create more problems than it solves. It might drive "predatory" offenders into behaviors that target the weak and vulnerable: children and teenagers. I once attended a talk given by a now-famous moral theologian. (I won't reveal his name.) After the talk, the topic of homosexuality came up. He said, "A lot of people feel sorry for homosexuals. Well, I don't. When I was a boy, I had to put up with them calling out after me on street corners, and making lewd suggestions, while I was walking outside." That would have been in the 1940s. Does anyone want to go back to that? Second, in the society in which we live, the practice of homosexuality as such does not constitute a threat to public order, so the parable of the wheat and the tares applies. Conceivably, however, there could be some modern-day societies in which homosexuality did constitute a real threat to public order. Suppose, to take a hypothetical example, we were living in a society where deaths from AIDS were hundreds or thousands of times higher than they are now, and there were no medical treatments available, and evidence emerged that homosexuals were one key group responsible for transmitting it to the rest of the population. Then it would be prudent to make homosexuality illegal. It would also be prudent to target other key groups responsible for spreading the disease. Even in such an extreme situation, however, there would be no case for re-instituting the Biblical death penalty for homosexuality. You ask me why this should be out of the question, given the decadent practices that are re-appearing in our own society. In brief: (1) Bad as our society is now - and it is getting steadily worse - we still have a long, long way to go before we hit the depths of depravity found in ancient Israel: child sacrifice, child prostitution, incest and so on. (2) We are no longer a subsistence society. We can afford jails; ancient Israel couldn't. Regarding marriage between a man and a woman where one or both parties has sterilized themselves, you ask;
Why not have the state issue a certificate barring marriage to any bachelor receiving a vasectomy unless and until the procedure is reversed?
Upon reflection, I think we need to distinguish between two kinds of hurdles: legal and ecclesiastical. I think a Christian minister would certainly be justified in refusing to marry the bachelor you described in your example, if he/she happened to find out that the bachelor had been sterilized. What about the State? Well, for starters, the notion of State officials going through people's medical records makes me feel pretty queasy. It's very Big Brother-ish. Additionally, one could argue that while the State has a legitimate interest in defending procreation as the social good for which the institution of marriage exists, it is too late to make sterilization an impediment to getting married. The damage has already been done; the rule has been transgressed too often now. Millions of people would have to be arrested. The best we can do now is to lower the bar to the next sustainable threshold: monogamy. Most people still strongly support that. Gay marriage would shatter that norm, so we should fight it tooth and nail, while we can.vjtorley
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:59 PM
9
09
59
PM
PDT
PS: On "born that way." I recently saw where it is pointed out that simply the fact of having properly expressed XY chromosomes -- there are some rare, unusual cases that lead to forms of what formerly were called hermaphrodites etc -- makes one something like 10 times more likely to be guilty of violent crime etc. But, we would never dream of saying that genetically induced proclivities remove moral responsibility for our decisions and behaviour. Similarly, if one has a proclivity and sensitivity to alcohol that may well be genetically built-in, that makes one MORE responsible not to express the proclivity in inappropriate ways or tread on slippery slopes. I think there are some lessons in this.kairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:17 PM
9
09
17
PM
PDT
Onlookers: The fundamental issue remains that we are looking at a rising tide of censorship, intimidation and slander, to back a radical agenda. The advocates of that agenda are consistently unable to objectively ground their claims, nor can they show us why we should tamper with the historic understanding and institution of marriage. They simply assert "rights," in a context where a dominant worldview that many such advocates support, evolutionary materialism, is known -- has been known since the days of Plato in his the Laws Bk X (as excerpted twice above) -- to reduce right to might: the highest right is might. So, we have excellent reason to be gravely concerned about such agendas, and those who champion them. this concern is heightened when we observe recent trends on anti- discrimination law or hate speech and hate crime law, so called, and how such laws have been abused, e.g. cf here. We also find very troubling efforts att he international level, e.g the Yogyakarta agenda as discussed critically here. In a nutshell such laws and proposed laws -- whether local, national or international -- are thought and conscience police laws. Plainly, on prudence, we should demand that the proposers of radical adjustments to the legal nature of marriage -- foundational to family, society and child nurture -- demonstrate that they (and those who follow them over the next 20 - 40 years) will not do more harm than good. Equally plainly, with ample opportunity to meet this challenge, and with abundant cases in point, the advocates of homosexualisation of marriage and family have not met this test. Evidently, they cannot. So, we are really dealing with an attack on the foundations of society to reshape it further in the interests of a radical agenda that has a good fit to the currently dominant evolutionary materialist, radical secularist ideology, but this ideology is itself incompatible with the premise of rights and liberty: a right is a binding moral claim for respect of our inherent dignity and purpose. It reflects the moral law that is written on our hearts, and which we see abundant evidence of above, in the explicit and implicit calls for "fairness," and "rights." But, if the law is written on our hearts, that points to the Writer, our Creator, Lord, and Judge before whom we will account:
Rom 2:6 [God] will reward each one according to his works: 7 eternal life to those who by perseverance in good works [thus in the way of penitence given whatever light they have] seek glory and honor and immortality [notice the principle and purpose, which specific rules will flesh out based on situations and circumstances], 8 but wrath and anger to those who live in selfish ambition and do not obey the truth but follow unrighteousness [notice the negative principle on rejection of truth one knows or should know, and its connexion to immorality] . . . . Rom 2:14 . . . whenever the Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature the things required by the law, these who do not have the law are a law to themselves. 15 They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts, as their conscience bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or else defend them [notice the principle of the conscience], 16 on the day when God will judge the secrets of human hearts, according to my gospel through Christ Jesus . . . . Rom 13:8 Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law. [notice the primacy of love and the point that principle sets the context for rules] 9 For the commandments, “Do not commit adultery, do not murder, do not steal, do not covet,” (and if there is any other commandment) are summed up in this, “Love your neighbor as yourself.” 10 Love does no wrong [or, HARM] to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. [NET]
Our civilisation is at -- or, actually likely beyond the crossroads that once a King of Babylon knowingly crossed. This issue looks a lot like the mysterious handwriting on a wall that showed that he had been weighed in the balance and found wanting. Our civilisation at this stage is plainly found wanting. The questrion is, is there even at the last moment, a way back? I fear not -- and fear, because if I am right we have a wild and bloody ride ahead that will put the worst aspects of WW 2 and the wider C20 into the shade -- but hope and pray to be wrong. In the meanwhile I suggest we study Chinese, or at least insist that our children do so. GEM of TKIkairosfocus
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
09:02 PM
9
09
02
PM
PDT
Consider: Fifty years ago, homosexual conduct was illegal in almost every state in America, and most conservative Christians supported its continued illegality. I'm not sure that all that many people thought about the illegality of sexual perversions fifty years ago. Have you thought about zoophilia being illegal now? I read a law review on it and actually it is not technically illegal. What opinion do you think that Christians should have on the legality of such things? At the moment, as evidenced by this thread, conservative Christians are saying something like “Criminalize homosexual conduct? That’s crazy! Whatever gave you that idea?” Someone may have said that but I didn't. It's still criminalized all around the world. What gave me that idea was all of Christian history except for the last few decades in the West. It's not just Christian history, it's the history of civilization in general. Why was it obvious to U.S. Christians 50 years ago that homosexuality should be considered criminal and obvious now that it should not be? Perhaps it's largely the success of the "born this way" propaganda combined with the fact that people feel that they can afford decadence. That's what John Adams was saying about the rise of civilization naturally leading to luxury and decadence and so on. It remains to be seen what will happen when the State begins to run out of money to paper over the decadence typical to a declining civilization.mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
08:50 PM
8
08
50
PM
PDT
mynm, you ask
You find it difficult to understand that Christianity doesn’t call for the execution of homosexuals?
Not at all. As a Christian, I find it difficult to know how to apply the Biblical standard in the contemporary context. Consider: Fifty years ago, homosexual conduct was illegal in almost every state in America, and most conservative Christians supported its continued illegality. At the moment, as evidenced by this thread, conservative Christians are saying something like "Criminalize homosexual conduct? That's crazy! Whatever gave you that idea?" What gave me that idea was all of Christian history except for the last few decades in the West. Why was it obvious to U.S. Christians 50 years ago that homosexuality should be considered criminal and obvious now that it should not be?QuiteID
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
07:52 PM
7
07
52
PM
PDT
You mean the number of straight marriages, right? Is it gay marriage that is the problem or just the mere recognition that perhaps some people are attracted to members of their same gender? There is no gay marriage or straight marriage, there is only marriage. It has always been recognized that people's sexual desires are not always perfectly oriented toward monogamous marriage over their life-span. And yet we still have the institution of marriage, why do you suppose that is? By not stigmatizing gays, they start to feel free to come out of the closet and not hide in loveless traditional marriages to a person they are not attracted to? The way that you make love into the equivalent of feeling good or happiness is telling. The reason that marriage vows typically are what they are is because marital love is not the juvenile notion of: "You make me happy now, therefore I love you!" or "Now I'm unhappy, so I don't love you." For Christians it's interesting to contrast the sacrificial love of Jesus towards his Church, putting aside feeling good totally. Doing so even just a little would go a long way in many marriages and ironically people would be much more happy the less selfish and juvenile they were about love.mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT
Actually the main safeguard against a tyrannical state is The Constitution in general, and the Second Amendment in particular.
A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when they lose their virtue they will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.... If virtue and knowledge are diffused among the people, they will never be enslaved. This will be their great security. --Samuel Adams Have you ever found in history, one single example of a Nation thoroughly corrupted that was afterwards restored to virtue? ….And without virtue, there can be no political liberty….Will you tell me how to prevent luxury from producing effeminacy, intoxication, extravagance, vice and folly? ….I believe no effort in favor of virtue is lost. ...our Constitution is made only for a moral and religious people. --John Adams
The idea that the massive power of the government is rendered ineffective because a family has a husband and a wife, as opposed to some other arrangement seems ridiculous on it’s face. Not ineffective, totalitarian because as the Founders noted when local forms of government like families and communities fail it will become more corrupt and centralized. How is the power of the government defeated... It's not defeated, it's greatly increased as the liberty of the people decreases.mynym
December 10, 2010
December
12
Dec
10
10
2010
06:28 PM
6
06
28
PM
PDT
1 6 7 8 9 10 21

Leave a Reply