Journal Community

Big changes are coming to They will affect commenting, profiles, connections and email notifications. Learn more.

Explore Group

Do we need religion to have ethics? Is it possible that a world without religion can be, on the whole, a better place to live?

« »
Recommend a comment by clicking the recommendation icon
  • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    Ethics you say ... it is apparent that James C, and X are FoXies ... and then I had to hear time and again on Fox the pope washed a woman's foot ... really, I guess when his mother was sick, she had to do it herself, and then on MSNBC and other wonderful Catholic book, not to be outdone by Colbert the Catholic getting on some new program ... and then I have to hear ... and this only happened when Catholics want something ... about Christians!!!, but of course a pope catholic video, after a pope catholic video ... as Christians ... Jesus was a Jew, Mary a Jewess ... and they were dead and buried 400 years before Catholic Hollywood created this Catholic Easter Hollywood goodie tv and movie programs - which certainly has no relation to the actually Catholic government don't you think. or you don't think because you don't know how tall Christ was, nor how long the so called Cross ... I mean pole was ... can't find it: Not there!


  • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    Hey Bob Washick,

    Read this story. rich Hollywood directors are now raping young boys at their lavish poolside parties.

    Let's have a few diatribes from you on those guys for a change...


    • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +


      Today, in an 8-1 decision authored by Justice Tom Parker, the Alabama Supreme Court held that the word "child" in Alabama's chemical-endangerment statute applies to the born and unborn in Ex Parte Sarah Janie Hicks. This decision is similar to the one this court made last year in Ankrom v. State, where the identical dispositive language in the ruling affirmed that "child" includes the "unborn child."

      In an age where many judges don't know the difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, or don't even care, finally the ASC springs forth with a ray of light. The opinions of Chief Justice Roy Moore and Tom Parker are well-reasoned, grounded in the latest science of embryo-genesis, history and natural law, and completely demolish the glaring fallacies in some SCOTUS abortion decisions.

      Ex Parte Sarah Janie Hicks involved the conviction, following a guilty plea, for chemical endangerment of a child. Hicks ingested cocaine while pregnant with "J.D.", which resulted in J.D. testing positive for cocaine at birth. "Hicks" argued that the word "child" in the chemical-endangerment statute did not apply to an unborn child.

      The trial court rejected Hicks's argument on the strength of the latest scientific evidence. The Criminal Court of Appeals, relying on ASC's decision in Ankrom v. State, affirmed the trial court. The ASC sealed the deal this afternoon.

      With this victory, the day is near when science will make SCOTUS abortion decisions come tumbling down like a house of cards. Then we will look back at history like we now do with Nazi Germany and wonder why our generation was so blind to the personhood of the preborn child. At long last, science -- real science, has come to the rescue of our most vulnerable and precious.

      Thank God!

      3 Recommendations

      • Jim O,

        I'm surprised you haven't jumped into the question I have posed about the rights of a preborn child. Why do they have rights that postborn children don't. If a postborn child needs the use of the body of their mother, the mother is well within her rights not to give use of it. The mother could withold use of blood , organs , etc even if these are the only commodities that would save the child. Yet a preborn child , according to some , has the right to enslave the mother's body and use her organs even against her wishes. Why would one think one way with respect to preborns but exactly the opposite way with respect to postborns? I have posted this dilemma three or four times and I get crickets.


      • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +


        Your "dilemma" is trivial in nature, which is probably why Jim and most others here ignored it.

        But if you recall, I did address it, so your claim of crickets is not accurate. It must be that faulty brain of yours again. Let me refresh your memory:

        A mother, with baby in the womb, is obligated from a moral perspective to provide the support that only a mother can give during a pregnancy in order to keep the baby viable and progressing.

        A mother enters into an arrangement to provide "reasonable" care when she gets pregnant and to provide that level of care to take the baby to term.

        In most people's minds it is reasonable for her to provide the use of her body during a pregnancy (that's what pregnancy, by definition is anyway), but not all that reasonable to require her to provide body parts or to give up her own life (either during or after pregnancy) in support of an extraordinary sick child.

        1 Recommendation

      • "A mother enters into an arrangement to provide "reasonable" care when she gets pregnant "


        Having sex is not entering into a contractual arrangement. First of all the mother may have been forced. A women may have been pressured for sex by her spouse. Or she may have wanted sex herself. However, in none of these situation was she volunteering to become a mother. In primates, sex is more than procreation. Bonobos , an offshoot of chimpanzees, are wildly "promiscuous" because they use sex to promote societal cohesion.

        So your initial premise is incorrect. Contracts that we are tricked into are generally not valid. Even if they are legal, no one thinks that they are moral. When unscrupulous sales people dupe older folks into signing over their houses for some sort of repairs, most believe it is immoral to hold a possibly mentally deficient person responsible.

        A healthy women is only likely to get pregnant 20-40% of the time during any given cycle if having unprotected sex and a whole lot less if on birth control. So if 60-80% of the time a women can expect not to be pregnant, she certainly does not sign up for it if she didn't want to become pregnant. And so many women or girls don't even know those odds. The idea that you want to hold a women responsible for something that doesn't happen most of the time is ludicrous. Blowing up that bit of sophistry , rendered your position null and void. Sorry , no cigar.


  • Here is something for the more negative people in this board,

    How to Stop a Nghtmare

    1 Recommendation

  • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

    I like your model. The only thing I would add is that this country is too young to appreciate the value of the long term factor. We are toying with rejecting God at great peril. We can say that we've adopted the Bible as a basic backdrop but, in reality, we have violated a basic assumption of the founders that we would remain a God-fearing nation.

    Happy Easter to all Christians! Happy whatever to all atheists! Happy Passover to all Jews! All Muslims can go to hell (or Michigan)!

    3 Recommendations

    • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

      Michigan does need a lot of demolition. And radical Muslims would do it for free; even cheaper than the Mexicans. :)
      "Hey, I just saw Salman Rushdie run into that empty boarded up building over there." Done.

      To all, if the week or the day has spiritual significance to you, I hope it is a blessed occasion.


    • Michael, if you were referring to my model, the US did have the Bible early on and for almost three hundred years after the settlements, and before it started slowly losing it as an "anchor." In my write-up, the one I didn't finish and publish, about the long conversation you all had in page 1123, I tried to cover the tribalism of the Jews that Peter mentioned. I think that the Jews have been able to stick together precisely because they have formed a tribe of sorts around their "anchor." That is also why it is easier for you to speak of liking and having allegiance to a larger government: you will never look at that government as your sole source of rules and always have your anchor to fall back on, but secular progressives like Greg don't.

      As the secular progressives find themselves without an anchor, more and more they will look to big government to provide one and before they know it they may end up with a monster they didn't bargain for. At least as you've pointed out on more than one occasion, Christianity and for sure Judaism have withstood the test of time and adjusted accordingly, thereby by now making them better rules packages. The new government-cum-anchor that secular progressives are creating will not have that advantage. Indeed, they may even find themselves where Islam is today by combining religion with politics.

      Spoken as an engineer from a systems perspective!

      Happy Passover to you, Easter to Christians, and whatever to the others.


      • Xavier,

        So since Jamestown was settled in 1607, I will take it that you believe that the country had a religious anchor until around the turn of the 19th century. That seems to neatly coincide with the rise of the progressive movement.

        This movement gained strength on the lacking of late 19th century society , that created a "Guilded Age bifurcnation between average workers and the super rich, Workers were exploited with few safeguards which led to notable workplace calamaties like the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire in Manhattan, New York City on March 25, 1911 that killed 123 women and 26 men who had been locked into their quarters to prevent pilferage and unauthorized breaks. And lets not forget labor friendly Andrew Carnegie where the idea of the "Company Store" was born.

        African Americans had been virtually handed back into slavery with the abandonment of Reconstruction and writers like W.E.B Dubois had begun sounding off about it. Then we were hit with back breaking Depression made exponentially worse by moralizing Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon, himself Noveu riche. It is no small wonder that FDR swept into power ushering a progressive agenda I guess by your reckoning ending the reiiance on the Bible.

        But it took another 30 years for African Americans to fully obtain their rights , at least on paper, and it took progressive Democratic government to engineer it. While there was lot else going on in the 100 years since we lost our moorings, do those who now bemoan this loss of innocence bear some blame? Progressives didn't come to power in a vacuum. There were clear societal ills that were not being addressed.

        The question for you and Michael is whether there is a sufficient reason for Americans to again embrace biblical teachings given some of those teachings would condemn the behaviors of a large group of Americans? And isn't that precisely the problem. Ths glue you talk about is not sufficient consistency to be trusted. African Americans and Latinos don't trust how Fundamentalist see things. Hasn't the central government that progressives promote been more effective in achieving the changes that these groups needed? So why should they trust a return to conservative , biblically base principles? What's in it for them?


      • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

        "As the secular progressives find themselves without an anchor, more and more they will look to big government to provide one and before they know it they may end up with a monster they didn't bargain for. "

        Machiavelli explained it with brutal clarity. Anything that CAN help you, can also harm you. The odds that it won't, not ever, when being administered by humans seems like just a silly and foolish bet to me.


      • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

        Good point. I take for granted that God is in my life and I assume that others can relate. I'm wondering if I'm way off base. And I'm questioning my acceptance of progressive politics.

        My grandparents came from NOTHING so they appreciated America. They made a small fortune from laundromats and motels. My father became a doctor. Life was good. They had a sadness and a smile that you don't find today. They had a belief that God will not abandon us and they had faith in the goodness of others. I look at today's youth and they have a belief that their smart phones will not abandon them. God is so small for them.

        Maybe I'm just getting older.


        1 Recommendation

      • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +


        While I do not consider Wikipedia to be a definitive source, it does provide good thumbnails.

        It doesn't appear to give any mention, but there were also colonies that had absolutely no religious "affinity" at all. The CT and Mass. colonies actually described the New York (New Amsterdam) colony as loud and "in your face" (My phrasing, I can't remember the way they put it; brass or such); what's kinda spooky is how it's still that way, 450 years later. There must be some manner of feed-back loop, which could be interesting to ponder.

        But, the original 13 colonies/states that served as the pilot for this project were NOT merely different flavors of Christian. I find it truly awesome just how much diversity our founders managed to accommodate. If you are the type who would be happiest in New Amsterdam/New York, fine. Go there. But there is no reason the Mormons of Utah or the Baptists of the south or the Puritan offshoots in the northeast "must" go with you. Live and let live. It's a big planet. Share it.


    • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +

      "Happy Easter to all Christians!

      Thank you Michael. Happy Passover to you. Now get those dishes done, it's been days! :)

      2 Recommendations

    • Shabbat Shalom, Michael.

      1 Recommendation

  • Sometimes I am so shocked that I just have to let out some steam. Yesterday afternoon Obama puffed his chest from his White House podium to tell us, among other things, that as it turned out, ObamaCare had reached 8 million enrollees by the deadline, of which 35% were under 35 years of age.

    Then last night I heard from someone in these Journal boards that the 35% included nonpaying youth under 26 that were now included in their parents’ insurance. I thought that was just someone spewing poison.

    Well, in the nightly news that just finished I learned that the 35% includes children under 16 years of age!!! Wow!!!

    I’ll leave it at that and let the data speak for itself.

    1 Recommendation

  • Nonsubscriber comments are set to "Hide" Show this comment +


    Keith is correct. Although you claim not to consume psychotropic substances, I found your question to be a tad too loopy -- even for you -- when I first read it a while back.

    Two years ago, in one of my posts, I addressed the ramifications of an article by Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, in which they argued that "fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons." In other words, the authors stated that "after-birth abortion" (infanticide) is ethical.

    Nature requires that a mother take the best possible care of her baby in the womb. The American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG)'s Ethics Committee issued the following opinion: "the committee asserts that a pregnant woman has a moral obligation to avoid use of illicit drugs and alcohol in order to safeguard the life of her fetus."

    Further, in committee opinion 397, ACOG says that "The obstetrician's professional obligation is to support the well-being of a pregnant woman and her fetus." And in committee opinion 501, on prenatal diagnosis and fetal intervention, the committee states: "The overarching goal of fetal interventions is clear: to improve the health of children by intervening before birth to correct or treat prenatally diagnosed abnormalities. This stems from a beneficence-based obligation to the fetus."

    These are medical findings, based on science, morality and professional ethics. Why do the physician and the pregnant woman have this moral obligation to promote the well-being of a "fetus" if that fetus is not a person? Most people who are not quoting MSLSD talking points would agree that there exists an obligation to promote the well-being of other persons -- not of a bunch of random cells that are more like a tumor than human life.

    A "postborn" baby has a full panoply of legal and medical remedies to protect his-her right to life. Maternal dereliction of duty to ensure her child's well-being is actionable under the "negligence" statutes. While a child outside the womb may require for optimum health maternal milk, there can be no compulsion of law upon a mother to breastfeed her baby.

    If what you are favoring here is infanticide, it would be consistent with the progressive position that life begins when you say it does, and that killing babies is always OK in a narcissistic progressive society where only those in government have the knowledge and power to make those determinations.

    Or maybe you are saying that mothers should call IPAB to find out when killing or letting a baby live is settled law under Obamacare. Or that Dr. Maddow will give them the correct answer to such dilemmas.

    I defer to state law for any disputed issues of material fact in connection with your conundrum -- as a lawyer. As a human being, I am devoted to the protection of all life -- from conception to natural death.

    3 Recommendations

« »
To add a comment please
Create an Account

Your real name is required
for commenting.

  • Clear
  • Post
Your Profile Here…

Set up your profile to connect with members of Journal Community.

Your profile gives you access to personal messages, connections, and Group invitations.

Your Groups Here…

Participate in engaging dialogue on topics that matter to you and other members of your group.

When you join groups you'll find them for easy access here. Learn new perspectives and educate each other.....