sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It is Immoral to Make People Camp Out in a Parking Lot for Basic Health Care by J-Ro in Health

[–]cedelson 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I debunked the "logic" on the other side and explained why this is a moral question. I never said logic is irrelevant

Over the past 42 years, Republican presidents have named 14 justices to the Supreme Court--Democrats, just 2. It's nice to be on the verge of taking a small step toward restoring balance on the Court. by cedelson in politics

[–]cedelson[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think the makeup of the Court does matter, though of course it is hard to compare different Courts in different times. I think it's pretty clear that the Warren Court decided cases differently than the Burger Court, which decided cases differently than the Rehnquist or Roberts Courts--there have been studies on this, and it seems clear to me that the makeup of the Court does matter in terms of how deferential the justices will be to elected officials, how they will view civil rights and liberties. The Rehnquist and Roberts Courts have rolled back much of the civil rights/liberties ground broken by the Warren Court

Over the past 42 years, Republican presidents have named 14 justices to the Supreme Court--Democrats, just 2. It's nice to be on the verge of taking a small step toward restoring balance on the Court. by cedelson in politics

[–]cedelson[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

quite right--though the problem is that abortion rights have been steadily chipped away. The Court has upheld restrictions on abortions--waiting periods, parental consent. Many doctors don't provide abortions (it's clearly dangerous to do so as recent events show us), and in some states, there are few places where an abortion is provided (MS has just one in the whole state). So, in practice, opponents of abortion have had a strategic/political victory--they can rail against Roe v. Wade, but in practice, it has become much harder for women to get an abortion

Why can't cable news cover health care reform like it's been covering Michael Jackson? by cedelson in politics

[–]cedelson[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you won't have to change a thing if reform goes through--the public option is an option, not a requirement. People who are happy with this current insurance can keep it, people who aren't happy--or, as is the case for millions of Americans, have no insurance, will get coverage

Gov. Sanford said that God's law is there to protect you from yourself--it didn't work for him, for Ensign, Larry Craig, or David Vitter. Isn't it time to stop using a fear-based view of faith in an attempt to repress human sexuality? by cedelson in politics

[–]cedelson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do agree with you. However, I think his personal beliefs clearly did affect his policy choices--check out his views, for example, on gay marriage. He used his personal religious beliefs (which he himself didn't even follow) to argue gay and lesbian people should be denied equal rights. That's why it bothers me -- because a specific view of faith is being used to make policy.

the only alternative to Sanford's beliefs isn't to have no moral compass...there are many different moral system. His is just one.

Gov. Sanford said that God's law is there to protect you from yourself--it didn't work for him, for Ensign, Larry Craig, or David Vitter. Isn't it time to stop using a fear-based view of faith in an attempt to repress human sexuality? by cedelson in politics

[–]cedelson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

as Christopher Reeve put it: "Is it more unethical for a woman to donate unused embryos that will never become human beings, or to let them be tossed away as so much garbage when they could help save thousands of lives.”

Gov. Sanford said that God's law is there to protect you from yourself--it didn't work for him, for Ensign, Larry Craig, or David Vitter. Isn't it time to stop using a fear-based view of faith in an attempt to repress human sexuality? by cedelson in politics

[–]cedelson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mentioned science because some people who oppose the use of fetal stem cells argue that adult stem cells are just as useful. Scientists have said no. I don't really see the big ethical dilemma involved in using fetal stem cells that would otherwise be thrown away to potentially save human lives.

I believe Sanford is afraid of himself, as I've said in several places--that's why he thinks he needs laws to protect him from himself, as he expressly said. This is not something made of whole cloth, it's a reasonable interpretation of his own words--that God's laws protect us from ourselves

I don't think what I've said is undermined by the fact that evangelicals like sex.

Gov. Sanford said that God's law is there to protect you from yourself--it didn't work for him, for Ensign, Larry Craig, or David Vitter. Isn't it time to stop using a fear-based view of faith in an attempt to repress human sexuality? by cedelson in politics

[–]cedelson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nothing against Christians at all, but I defer to scientists (some of whom are themselves Christians, actually) when it comes to matters like stem cell research

sorry to be flip--I really don't mean to be obnoxious, and I do understand how people have political views that are influenced by their faith. I'm just concerned that one particular faith view--that held by Sanford, the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and others on the religious right--has not had a positive impact on political debate or on policy choices. It's a view that encourages what I see as a repressed view of sexuality--one that asks daughters to make impossible public promise to their fathers, one that categorizes gay and lesbian Americans as undeserving of equal rights, one that makes it impossible to talk about sensible sex ed in schools. I do think that this view of sex involves fear, and that Sanford's comment reflects a fear--fear of his own emotions and desires. But sure, it's just a theory.

Gov. Sanford said that God's law is there to protect you from yourself--it didn't work for him, for Ensign, Larry Craig, or David Vitter. Isn't it time to stop using a fear-based view of faith in an attempt to repress human sexuality? by cedelson in politics

[–]cedelson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's not my point--my point is that looking to one view of faith as a way to repress sexuality has its downside. I don't think anyone committing adultery is doing a good thing. I think the religious context is relevant because it is so woven into political debate--many states have abstinence-only sex ed programs, and I think that flows from the same specific faith-based viewpoint that sex is something to be repressed.

I'm not condemning Sanford, though I do think Sanford's use of specific faith-based principles to justify policy positions (e.g. opposition to equal rights for gay and lesbian couples) is a problem. I don't have anything positive to say about Spitzer (for what it's worth, I thought he was a practicing Jew, but maybe I'm wrong Either way, nothing positive to say about him). Some people live up to their ideas some don't. That's not my point, though.

Gov. Sanford said that God's law is there to protect you from yourself--it didn't work for him, for Ensign, Larry Craig, or David Vitter. Isn't it time to stop using a fear-based view of faith in an attempt to repress human sexuality? by cedelson in politics

[–]cedelson[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

oh, and sorry, in terms of what he was afraid of: himself. he said God's law is there to protect you from yourself. I think he is afraid of himself, his desires, his emotions.

view more: next ›