Morality, Religion & Philosophy: September 2005 Archives

Bill Bennett is rightly in trouble for suggesting that, although it would be "morally reprehensible", aborting more black babies would reduce crime.

"But I do know that it's true that if you wanted to reduce crime, you could, if that were your sole purpose, you could abort every black baby in this country, and your crime rate would go down," said Bennett, author of "The Book of Virtues."

He went on to call that "an impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do, but your crime rate would go down. So these far-out, these far-reaching, extensive extrapolations are, I think, tricky."

Interestingly, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, specifically saw blacks as "unfit" and argued that they should be prevented from reproducing, "by force if necessary".

Planned Parenthood's founder and matriarch, Margaret Sanger in the 1930s ingeniously promoted her ideology that the "unfit" should be prevented from reproducing, "by force if necessary." Since the economic plight of many Blacks placed them and their families in the position of living in an environment that Sanger believed breed "unfit" individuals, her organization zeroed in on the "Negro" population. Establishing the "Negro Project," Sanger and her cohorts set out to push their birth control agenda which as she writes "is nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or of those who will become defectives" (The Pivot of Civilization written by M. Sanger)

In November 1939 a "Negro Project" leader feared that the project would be in "a great danger" of failing because "the Negroes think it a plan for extermination." Therefore, "let's appear to let the colored run it ...." (Gamble memo "Suggestions for Negro Project" excerpted from pamphlet issued by the African American Committee, A.L.L.) Sanger later wrote him back saying, "We do not want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population ..." She goes on saying that use of the Negro minister would effectively "straighten ... any rebellious members." (Letter from Sanger to Gamble, excerpted from pamphlet issued by the African American Committee, A.L.L.) "With social service backgrounds, and engaging personalities" the "hired ... Colored Ministers" would "propagandized for birth control ... "through a religious appeal." To help maintain control, the colored ministerial staff would be carefully controlled. "A project director lamented 'I wonder if Southern Darkies can ever be entrusted with ... a clinic. Our experience causes us to doubt their ability to work except under White supervision'." Through her Negro Advisory Council, Sanger's dream of discouraging "the defective and diseased elements of humanity" from their "reckless and irresponsible swarming and spawning" has been successful. (Excerpts from Grand Illusions: The Legacy of Planned Parenthood)

The difference is that Mrs. Sanger didn't find the idea morally reprehensible, but laudible.

I've tried very hard to avoid learning anything about the moronic "emerging church" movement, but despite my best efforts I came across the prayer lamp (thanks to my fiancee, who couldn't stop laughing).

This is almost as retarded as the idea I had 15 years ago when I prayed into a tape recorder and played it back to God.

But is this *real* prayer?
Why not? What makes a prayer 'real'? Does prayer have to take place in a church building or using certain 'special' words? Christians prayer in wide variety of ways - if you mean it, then it's the real thing.

Christians apparently conjugate in a wide variety ways as well. But what does *real* grammar look like? Here's a clue: it doesn't make you look like an idiot.

Choosing a version of the Bible is hard, and to tell the truth I haven't done a great deal of research. I've read what various scholars have said about the versions, but I'm not linguistically qualified to judge the translations based on their own merits -- if I were, I wouldn't need a translation, I could just read the Bible in the original languages! The main reasons I chose the NIV are:

1. The NIV is based on more (quantity) and more recent manuscripts than just about any other version.

2. It was translated independently by several teams who then compared their results to ensure accuracy.

3. I find it very readable.

4. It appears to accurately translate the thoughts of the original texts into the appropriate English words. That is, it is a "thought-for-thought" (TFT) translation rather than "word-for-word" (WFW). The main problem I have with WFW translations is that the meanings of words change over time, as can be clearly seen by examining the way the Hebrew word sheol is treated.

Here's a chart of how sheol is translated in different versions of the Bible. This chart doesn't explain any of the other differences between the translations or why one should one over another, other than to mention that the person who compiled the chart is a Jehovah's Witness who believes that the New World Translation (NWT) is the most faithful to the original.

With a WFW translation it's very easy to think you understand the thought behind a word but be entirely mistaken. Some readers prefer WFW translations because they don't want to trust translators to attribute the right thoughts to the words... but they're still trusting the translators to put the right English words to the original words. It seems to me that even if you learn the original languages yourself you're still going to have to trust that your teachers are teaching you the language properly. Since you can't escape trusting someone, I prefer to cut out all the middle steps and just buy a TFT translation.

Eugene Volokh asks does God hate poor people? In response to the assertions of some Christians that hurricane Katrina was a judgement from God on New Orleans:

If this is so, then wouldn't it follow that God must really dislike poor people? After all, poor people generally bear the brunt of most natural disasters: It's harder for them to evacuate; they are less likely to have insurance; their assets are less likely to be diversified, so the economic damage is more likely to be severe for them; they are closer to the poverty line, so even small losses may harm them more than larger losses harm rich people; and so on. If you live in a poor country, you're much more likely to suffer from disasters than if you live in a rich country. If you're poor in any country, you're much more likely to suffer from disasters than if you live in a poor country.

The same is in considerable measure true for wars, at least since World War II: Tragic as 9/11 was, the loss of life in America was far less than the loss of life in Rwanda, Uganda, Cambodia, and who knows how many other poor countries in recent decades. And it's true for AIDS and most other diseases: Rich gays in the U.S. are much more likely to survive AIDS than poor people -- gay or straight, promiscuous or monogamous but infected by nonmongamous spouses or in other ways -- in Africa or Asia.

So, which is it: Does God dislike poor people? Or might it be that disasters, wars, and diseases are actually not God's punishment for sin?

The general explanation is that some disasters are intended to punish, and some disasters are merely allowed to happen.

As a rather conservative Christian myself, it appears to me that most of the evil and terrible things that happen to people in the world are either the direct result of their own evil actions, or the direct result of the evil actions of others. Arguably, much of the suffering in New Orleans is due to poor/incompetent preparation by local officials who neglected their duties -- and some of that blame then rests with the voters who elected them.

However, the Bible certainly does teach that God punishes evil-doers, though not all bad events are punishment. From Jesus' teaching on two specific events in his day that killed a lot of people:

Luke 13:1-5

Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices. Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish. Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."

Update:
A pseudonymous Reader at the VC makes a pithy observation:

This explanation of killing sinners would also make God into one heck of a liar. I have it on substantial authority that God promised not to kill any more sinners with flood waters. . .