Morality, Religion & Philosophy: January 2004 Archives

I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but civilization is officially over.

Everyone knows that the only reason men do anything is because they think it'll get them some attention from women (no one knows why women do anything). All of civilization is was built by men trying to get the best women to have sex with them. The advance of civilization was really just an incidental byproduct of the fact that sex generally involved eventually having kids, because for whatever reason the women threatened to quit having sex otherwise.

Get with the times, that's so 20th century!

For a while, liberated women seemed to be the up-and-coming social fashion -- they wanted to have sex, but you know, maybe the babies could wait a while. This was a new twist, but they still ended up having kids because that's just what happens. Thus, civilization endured for a while longer.

Now, women apparently don't even want to have sex, they just want our money. We always suspected this was the case, but in the past men bravely held out for sex before handing the money over. No more. Thanks to the internet -- and the total depravity of women -- I give you the imaginary girlfriend.

Some are hot, some are uh... otherwise, but who can really tell? That's the beauty of the internet! Both those listings could be for the same person (or company)! An entrepreneurial woman could have dozens of imaginary boyfriends.

And what does a man get for his $220.00?

This auction includes:

- Me sending you a one page letter, scented with my favorite perfume, once a week. YOU get to choose the details of the letter! ie: Sexy, Hot, Kinky, Sweet and Innocent, etc etc..

- I will also be sending you a sweet card on Valentine's Day! Also scented with perfume!

- If you buy me now for the Buy It now price you will get six, 1 hour webcam sessions on Yahoo, with light cyber and mild 'flashing' ;) This is for Buy It Now ONLY!

- Talking on AIM every other night. This will most likely be discussed since schedules may clash. Plus you will get photos emailed to you.

- You will receive 6 voicemail messages from me. ;) You just need to let me know when to call. NO LIVE PHONE CHATS. You also get to decide the details you want me to say in these messages!

- A real photo to hold and show off.

- You choice of 2 sexy thongs or bras scented with my perfume.<3

Terms and Conditions

- This in NO WAY makes me your real girlfriend.

- After the 60 days all communications are broken, no more chatting, e-mails, letters or phone calls..etc, etc. In other words no we can't be friends after this. Sorry. <3

- After 60 days, IF the buyer wants another 30, 60, days ie: letters, chatting etc. Price can be discussed over e-mail. Just let me know! ;)

- The winning bidder must tell the specifics of the relationship: ie: how we met, where, etc.

- The 60 days begins when I receive payment, I will email you after the auction has ended.

Actually, this sounds like some real girlfriends I've uh, known of. Anyway, the point is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. We all saw how liberation spread, and it's only a matter of time before women catch on to this new relationship paradigm.

Collect your things, because this crazy train called life is pulling into the last station.

(HT: BoingBoing.)

What does it mean to be poor in America? Who are all these people the leftists (and GWB) want to help by forcibly taking my money? According to a report by the conservative Heritage Foundation called "Understanding Poverty in America", most poor Americans are pretty well off.

If poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being “in poverty” by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor. While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity.

The average “poor” person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines. The following are facts about persons defined as “poor” by the Census Bureau, taken from various government reports:

- Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or
patio.
- Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
- Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
- The typical poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to
those classified as poor.)
- Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
- Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
- Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
- Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.

Overall, the typical American defined as poor by the government has a car, air conditioning, a refrigerator, a stove, a clothes washer and dryer, and a
microwave. He has two color televisions, cable or satellite TV reception, a VCR or DVD player, and a stereo. He is able to obtain medical care. His home
is in good repair and is not overcrowded. By his own report, his family is not hungry, and he had sufficient funds in the past year to meet his family’s
essential needs. While this individual’s life is not opulent, it is equally far from the popular images of dire poverty conveyed by the press, liberal activists,
and politicians.

There's another 18 pages, so go take a look.

There certainly are real poor people in America, but I think the government has shown time and again that it isn't philosophically equipped to deal with the problem. Rather than focus with tight efficiency on those who are truly in need, the government simply throws handfuls of other people's money into the void. If more people were aware of the condition of our nation's "poor" -- and if they were allowed to give voluntarily rather than by forcible taxation -- I think the definition of poverty would quickly change to something more realistic.

How about this:

The good news is that the poverty that does exist in the United States can readily be reduced, particularly among children. There are two main reasons that American children are poor: Their parents don’t work much, and their fathers are absent from the home.

In both good and bad economic environments, the typical American poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year—the equivalent of 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year—the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year—nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.

Get a job, you lazy bums! It's for the children!

(Thanks to Cypren for pointing this report out to me.)

Arizona State Representative Doug Quelland delivered an opening prayer that invoked many traditional Christian values and left Democrats ruffled. What the Democrats' reaction really shows is that they don't understand what prayer is about at all.

"The opening prayer is the one opportunity during each day that we can come together as a body. The opening prayer should unite us, not divide us.

"But the prayer on January 26, 2004, was divisive. It was a pandering, mudslinging, name-calling political statement. It was hateful and mean-spirited. It was undignified.

"The citizens of Arizona deserve better. We are diverse. We have unique perspectives. And our unique voices should be respected. Especially during the opening prayer, as members of this body we must set aside our differences and show respect for Arizona in all of its diversity."

Rep. Quelland wasn't praying to Arizona, or to the citizens of Arizona, or to the diversity of Arizona -- he was praying to God. The purpose of prayer isn't to show respect for diversity or to bring people together, the purpose of prayer is to speak with God by confessing the evil we do, thanking him for his blessings, praising his greatness, and asking him to meet our needs and the needs of others.

The real disagreement here is that the complaining Democrats don't believe in and worship the same God as Rep. Quelland. They worship themselves, and they think prayer is all about them.

Here's an example of why it's important to recognize abortion as killing: a UK professor of bioethics advocates murdering "defective" infants.

John Harris, a member of the Human Genetics Commission, told a meeting at Westminster he did not see any distinction between aborting a fully grown unborn baby at 40 weeks and killing a child after it had been born.

Harris, who is a professor of bioethics at Manchester University, would not be drawn on which defects or problems might be used as grounds for ending a baby’s life, or how old a child might be while it could still be destroyed.

Harris was reported to have said that he did not believe that killing a child was always inexcusable.

In addition, it was claimed that he did not believe that there was any ‘moral change’ that occurred between when the baby was in the womb and when it had been brought into the world.

Well, we agree on that last point -- I just happen to think it's wrong to kill babies either before or after they're born, whereas he thinks it's ok to kill them any time.

Really though, why not kill defective adults as well? The only difficulty is defining "defective".

(As a side note, this is remarkably similar to the question of deciding who gets to vote.)

TMLutas takes issue with the "goblin" terminology, and I'm in general agreement with his principle even though I endorsed the term in my previous post.

I think that it should not be easy to kill. I belong to a faith that takes the commandment against murder very seriously. But at the same time it is not a pacifist faith (though our current bishop, God bless him, gets very close). One thing that it would be very much against is the idea of dehumanization. Yes, Saddam Hussein is a child of God, yes Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot all were children of God and special to Him.

I don't think it should be easy to kill either; as I agreed earlier, it's a weighty and terrible choice. The reason I'm pleased with the term "goblin" is that it puts villains in their proper place: as ones who have surrendered their natural rights by infringing on the natural rights of others. I'm not passing spiritual judgement on anyone's worth in God's eyes; I use the term to cast such people out of the sphere of civil protection that society and government provide the rest of us. Naming evil-doers "goblins" is simply a convenient way to group together those who are -- justly -- no longer to be accorded the standard rights and privileges of humanity.

Contrary to TMLutas' statement, killing someone isn't "the equivalent of taking a baseball bat to one of God's priceless artworks" and doesn't "destroy[] that priceless handiwork". In Christian theology, no one -- good or evil -- is ever destroyed in the sense of annihilation. By killing someone and removing them from this world you merely pass them onto God for his final judgement. That's certainly a serious issue, and not to be done lightly, but it's an authority that God entrusts to humanity and commands us to use justly (generally administered by government as God's agent of common grace). God reserves the power of eternal judgement for himself.

The California grocery workers' strike began on October 11th, 2003, and continues to this day. Most people didn't expect Kroger, Safeway, and Albertsons to hold out this long, but after 103 days it's the striking workers who are looking weak (I know, I know, two LA Times articles in one day... blame Rough & Tumble).

It's interesting to consider the so-called "right to strike", and here's an article (from 1990) by Charles W. Baird that discusses some of the moral and legal issues. I wouldn't be surprised if the National Labor Relations Act has been modified since this article was written, but Dr. Baird's moral arguments are still persuasive.

The only job-related right that can be held and exercised by all people in the same way is the right to make job-related offers to others. Sellers of labor services have a right to offer to work for any employer on any terms the sellers wish. They do not have a right to compel any employer to accept such offers. In exactly the same way, employers have a right to offer to employ any worker on any terms whatsoever. They do not have the right to compel any employee to accept such offers. In short, the employment relationship is a contractual relationship based on mutual consent. In the absence of a contractual agreement to the contrary, no employee has a property right to any job.

What about the right to strike? In the absence of a contractual agreement to the contrary, any employee has a right to withhold his labor services from an employer if he doesn't like the pay and benefits the employer offers. If each individual has this right, then a group of like-minded individuals can exercise this right together. In other words, all individuals who want to may withhold their labor services at the same time. If this concerted action induces the employer to acquiesce to the workers' terms, so be it. That will depend on the relative bargaining power of the two sides, and neither side has a natural right to any bargaining power advantage. Each side's bargaining power depends on the attractiveness of its alternatives.

However, and this is the central point, notwithstanding Section 13 of the National Labor Relations Act, like-minded workers who simultaneously withhold their labor services have no legitimate right to interfere in any way with the right of the struck employer to engage in voluntary exchanges with customers, suppliers, and other workers. Workers who are willing to work for a struck employer who wishes to hire them have a legitimate right to do so. Moreover, they may agree to accept the very terms of employment that the strikers consider to be unacceptable. Replacement workers have the same job-related natural rights as striking workers.

To summarize, any worker or group of workers has the right to bargain with employers for mutually satisfactory compensation; however, no one has the right to infringe on the contract rights of others by indimidating workers, employers, or customers, and no one is entitled to special protection above and beyond the value of the service they themselves are providing. That means that if an employer wants to fire strikers, he should be able to do so. Workers shouldn't strike if they think they'll be easy to replace; ease-of-replacement demonstrates that the workers are being paid at least fair wages, and possibly better. On the flip side, employers won't fire workers whom they are paying below-market wages; they'll have an incentive to get the employees back to work at slightly higher pay.

If the only thing protecting your job is a law prohibiting your employer from firing you, you're overpaid.

I just recently started sleeping with a loaded handgun within arm's reach, and Emperor Misha and Kim du Toit address an issue I'd been tossing around in my head: will I have the nerve to use it if I have to? As Mr. du Toit writes,

Civilized people, quite correctly, shrink from causing harm or death to another human being. This is perfectly normal, and is indeed laudable. (Sociopaths, of course, have no such compunction, which is why they themselves should be killed.)

And quite apart from any legal issues, the moral issue of taking a life is a weighty and terrible one.

That it is. The best of his advice comes down to his naming violent criminals "goblins", and pointing out that they've already sacrificed their humanity by becoming predators.

Richard Pryor once remarked that after making the movie Stir Crazy on location at Arizona State Prison, he was really, really glad that prisons exist. He illustrated that by quoting an actual interview with a convicted murderer:
-- "Why did you kill all the people in that family?"
-- "Cuz they was at home."
Think about the uncaring sociopathy in that statement. Now think of that same scumbag playing his ghastly little games of death with your kids.

I don't have any kids, but my gut understands his point perfectly. It's not a pleasant possibility to consider, but I want to be ready if I ever face it.

Good reason to hit the range this evening.

Confidential to Chik-Fil-A: please start opening on Sunday. I want to eat your tasty chicken after church. It's so tender and juicy, and when you're closed you lead me to covet.

P.S., I won't tell God if you don't.

The New York Times is running an article about Dennis Miller -- mostly about his new show -- and includes the following quote:

Mr. Miller said he remained socially liberal. "I think abortion's wrong, but it's none of my business to tell somebody what's wrong," he said. "So I'm pro-choice. I want to keep my nose out of other people's personal business. ..."

I generally like Mr. Miller a lot, and agree with him on many issues, but I'd like to use this quote of an example of the contradictory view that many Americans have of abortion. Mr. Miller thinks abortion is wrong, but he doesn't want to prevent it. On the surface that sounds ok -- I think getting addicted to drugs and alcohol is wrong, but I don't think the War on Drugs is doing much good.

However, most people don't seem to understand the fundamental difference between "live and let live" issues and abortion. Why does Mr. Miller think abortions (of convenience) are wrong at all? Either he sees them as the taking of a life (that needs to be justified), or not. If he doesn't see abortion as taking a life, then why is it even mildly wrong? If he does see abortion as killing, then why wouldn't he be in favor of laws putting the same justification requirements on abortion as exist for all other sorts of killing? Killing and murder aren't the same thing, and there are lots of reasons why it can be acceptable to kill someone (self-defense, for instance). Why not restrict abortion in the exact same manner as we restrict other forms of killing?

Mr. Miller's confused perspective isn't at all unique to him. The fundamental difference between "live and let live" crimes and abortion is that the first are "victimless", while the whole controversy of abortion is based around the question of whether or not there is a victim. If unborn babies are not people, then there's no victim, and there's no reason to restrict abortions at all. On the other hand, if unborn babies are people, then they should be protected to the same degree we ourselves are.

Donald Sensing has a short post about the wisdom of churches modifying their methods to make non-members feel comfortable. Rev. Sensing recognizes the imortance of accessibility, but most of his commenters are firmly against the idea and seem to feel there's great value in erecting a barrier between the church and non-members, and thus between God and non-believers.

I'm a member of the leadership team at Venice Baptist Church (like deacons, elders, or what-have-you; even the different name reflects the point of this post, heh), and we've been tweaking our accessibility for five years or so now. We never compromise Biblical doctrine, but our goal has been to make our church a place where if people felt uncomfortable it's because of the message of God, not because they don't understand what the heck is going on.

Many of Rev. Sensing's commenters laud the value of words like "hymn" and "sermon" and decry using modern language, calling it "Church Lite". That's the same general arguement used by people who insist that the 1611 King James Version of the Bible is the only acceptable translation of God's word, despite the fact that most modern English speakers can't understand more than half the text. Not because they aren't spiritual, but because the meanings of words have changed dramatically in four centuries. The fact is that modern translations are simply more accurate and based on better manuscripts and better scholarship. I grew up with the KJV and have memorized tons of scripture in it, but I don't use it anymore because it's difficult even for me to understand -- and it's easy to get wrong ideas from it because of the changed meanings of words and phrases.

(Plus, Jesus didn't speak 17th century English, he spoke Hebrew and Aramaic, so if you want to be pedantic go learn those and read the Bible in the original languages. Even then you'll have to depend on your language teachers and history books to interpret the meanings of the words you read, so it's not like you'll be getting a more "pure" understanding of the Bible than you do if you read the translations done by teams of hundreds of experts.)

Over the past five years or so we've made a lot of changes to our methodology, without sacrificing Truth. We got rid of our choir and now have a "worship team" that includes (gasp) drums and electric guitars. We sing songs written within the past decade. We have video games set up in our kids' rooms for game time. We use modern translations for our scripture readings (and memorization) so that everyone can understand what God has written to them.

The effect has been substantial. Five years ago the average age of our membership was around 50, and there were zero nursery-age kids. Now our average age has dropped to around 35, and there are tons of babies everywhere. "Oh sure, but everyone's so much less spiritual now." Please. The younger people are invigorating our church's passion for God. The younger people give far more time and money to God than the older people do (or can). The younger people are raising Godly children for the next generation. That's not to say everything's perfect by any means, but our church is on the road to health and growth.

On another note, many old-liners sneer whenever people mention that a church is growing. It's not about numbers, they say. Yeah, sure, it's not about numbers, except for the fact that every person who accepts Christ is one more person who's not going to Hell, you self-righteous twits. And maybe they'll serve God, and maybe they'll tell their friends, and then maybe some more people will escape eternal damnation. Other than that it's not about numbers, you're right.

Jesus was accessible and relevant in his day, and even the exalted King James Version was written in the common vernacular of its time (which is why the Church hated it). Anyone who thinks the pinnacle of Christian liturgical development is back in 1950 is delusional. The message of Jesus must be presented to everyone, in every language, in as clear and understandable a manner as possible.

Update:
I should have posted this passage before. Here's Paul's opinion on the matter.

1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some. I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Mark Stein gives us some good reasons to go buy a gun. This article was written in response to a letter to the editor written by a (British?) woman who thinks everything's better when no one except criminals have guns.

The Independent's Joan Smith recalled that, when she spied a burglar on her porch, she had no desire to "blow him away". Nor do I, if I'm honest.

But I do want to have the right to make the judgment call. You can call 999, get the answering machine rerouting you to the 24-Hour Action Hotline three counties away, leave a message, and wait for the Community Liaison Officer to get back next week if he's returned from his emotional trauma leave by then.

But that's the point: you're there, the police aren't. And, even in jurisdictions whose constabularies aren't quite so monumentally useless as Britain's, a citizen in his own home should have the right to make his own assessment of the danger without being second-guessed by fellows who aren't on the scene.

And, once you give the citizen that right, he hardly ever has to exercise it. Take Miss Smith's situation: she's at home, but the burglar still comes a-knocking. Thanks to burglar alarms, British criminals have figured out that it's easier to wait till you come home, ring the door bell, and punch you in the kisser.

In my part of the world, that's virtually unknown. In America as a whole, 12.7 per cent of burglaries are of "occupied homes"; in Britain, it's 59 per cent. Installing a laser system may make your property more secure, but it makes you less so.

None of this is new, but it bears repeating.

Around this time of year many people reflect on the "true meaning of Christmas", but here's a great post by Donald Sensing on the true meaning of Jesus. It's somewhat in the context of Howard Dean's recent profession of faith, but Rev. Sensing addresses the larger questions I've asked in the past as they relate specifically to Jesus.

So the primary question in any rational inquiry about Jesus, from any angle, is not, "What did he teach?" because what he taught, while admirable, was unexceptional. The primary question is, "What did Jesus do?"

To that question there are only two possible answers:

- First, he preached self-exalting, babbling nonsense, hence he was a nut case whose inspiration of billions across two millennia makes no sense.

- Second, Jesus was raised from the dead by God, proving conclusively that not only are Jesus’ ethical teachings God-endorsed, but so are his self proclamations, including claiming equality with God. So maybe we’d better listen to him.

There's no middle ground. As C.S. Lewis pointed out, there's no room for thinking that Jesus wasn't God, but was a "good teacher". A good teacher wouldn't be insane or falsely claim to be God.

Some people argue (see comments) that carrying a handgun won't do much to protect you from criminals, saying that there won't be very many occasions in which having a gun will make the difference between life and death. I don't think that's true, but even so, human criminals aren't the only predators to worry about, even in urban environments.

There have been two high-profile dog-attack stories recently. In the first, two dogs on leashes with their owner killed a women in San Francisco, and more recently three pit bulls with a history of endangering humans escaped from a yard and brutally mauled a Colorado lady to death. There's no way a human (especially a woman) can fight off two or three huge dogs bare-handed. Dogs are always armed with deadly weapons, and as these two cases illustrate they can't always be controlled by their owners. I expect that we've all been chased by dogs at one time or another, possibly afraid for our lives and completely defenseless. If these women had been armed, they might still be alive.