Now to start a discourse!
I'm a liberal! I admit it.. yes the cardinal sin... I think it was because I listened to too much Rush Limbaugh (I mean seriously, have you listened to that guy?? ALL he does is 'hate' on the liberals.. NEVER EVER mentions anything about what repubs stand for... )
THat's it... I'm a liberal.. Let the hate begin!
I think what happened to be honest T is the religious institutions (made up of tax paying people) couldn't afford the task to the degree that you're talking. The problem tho stems with the government and all it's programs to begin with. We've met many people in our business over the years who admitted they stopped giving to charitable organizations because the government was taking so much of their hard earned tax dollars for these programs you're speaking of.
If the government would give the money back to the people and let them support their own charities then you'd see more money going to these churches who in turn would be able to do more because they have more funds. As a church secretary now, I handle the contributions and our budget is tight. We have a budgeted amount for the food pantry but would love to be able to budget it higher but we need to funds to come in first to be able to do so.
There's only so much to go around so if the government takes from you, you have less to give.
Right, I agree with this. The way I view this particular topic is this: children really are the future of the country (I know, cliche')...they don't choose to be born to worthless parents. Once they are here, we have an obligation as a moral country to meet some of their basic needs.
Why? From a practical standpoint, the more support they're given (food, medical, safe environment) as children, the less likely they will be to suck off the public when they're older through illness (from poor nutrition as a child), have less medical problems which results in fewer workman's comp claims and SS claims.
The problem with leaving it to churches, or religion in general is twofold. First, because of separation of church and state, how do we ensure children in their care are treated well, fed, etc? Second, giving through religion is voluntary and unreliable.
Breaking down the cost of caring for the country's children (which benefits everyone in the end) is much less when spread out over the multitude of tax payers. People who give at church aren't even close to meeting that number. As a "civilized" country I believe we are obligated to do it whether we like it or not. The gov. is the only institution that can take your money by force. That's a crass way to say it, but it's true.
Living in a free country is a privilege. But it isn't free. No one ever said it would be.
Are there wasteful gov. programs? YES!!! Is the federal gov too big? YES!!!
I agree with the sentiment to a point.
People want to drive and we have to pay for roads whether we drive or not. People want safe meat, and we have to pay for FDA inspectors even if we're vegetarians.
There there are "common good" practices and principles that must be supported by the public in a free society whether people want to pay for it or not. It is these practices which help promote a safe environment, and educated people, for businesses to prosper.
The crux though, is defining social programs that are for "public good" which enables our country to prosper both individually and collectively, financially and ethically.
I believe social programs geared toward children meet these requirements and therefore should not be "optional."
I also believe everyone who earns over the poverty level in this country, should pay the same tax rate.
Everyone should be forced to participate in the "common good" not just the highest income earners. One of the reasons people are so quick to take advantage of these "Free" programs is because they are free to them.
I wonder how fast some of the excess would be cut if everyone had to carry some of the load.
this is a good point. But I still have to say going the government's route isn't the answer either.
this is a double sided argument. We can say the same about kids being lost, killed, abused in the social government system as well. If I had a choice as a parent and everything being equal, I'd take a chance with a private religious system than a secular government system.
Maybe..just maybe the whole problem has to do with the whole separation of church and state to begin with. There is no separation when it's in their best interest as I've recently learned with what just happened to our church in NH recently. The state sure got very involved there and made a big mess of things including not making any sense at all. In the end all they did was collect big bucks from the church destroying it in the process. Many of us were crying separation of church and state? Really? Whenever the state gets involved messes follow. They very rarely make things better.
If the government gave money to our churches for their food pantries so they could best deliver the food/supplies etc that would go a whole lot further than these wasteful programs that just throw money at the problem. Stewardship is a very big problem when it comes to government spending as you are well aware of.
For instance we have a, very high on crack, couple call us and beg us for money occasionally. They said last week they hadn't eaten in two days. We know them and their history and understand how druggies can be cons. Anything to get their next fix. We will not give them money but will give them food. My Pastor left the office to pick up bread and milk and various items from our food pantry to drop off at their house being very careful not to give them anything they could sell. The churches have a way of getting together to monitor who's legit and who's using the services by sending out a local listing as to who's being helped. The government doesn't have that type of local relationship with the people.
We are very careful how we spend our money. We help as many as 17 families a week but have to tell them only to come once a month because that's all we can afford. You should see them line up outside our very very rural church surrounded by shacks all around us. We bus their children to church and youth group but feed them before youth group to make sure they get fed that night. It'd be nice to have more money to help these people who can't afford to drive to any of these fancy social programs that may be too far away for them to get to.
that's socialism you're promoting here. And that is not the answer. It's an answer, but not the best way to go.
I don't agree. By your standard then all taxes are socialism. Everything done for the "common good" with those taxes is socialism. Roads, national defense, etc.
The definition of socialism as I understand it is:
Socialism is about everyone being equal, no one having more than the other guy. I'm promoting the exact opposite. Tax everyone above poverty level the same percentage, and let everyone carry some of the load instead of half carrying the load and the other half sucking up their efforts.
Actually since GW, churches CAN in fact apply for grants to help provide services to the poor. It was called Faith Based Initiatives under Bush, but Obama has made some administrative changes, as well as a name change. http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/
There are a few guidelines, mostly about the money being used to help the needy regardless of religious affiliation. And of course accountability paperwork must be filled out, filed, etc.
Lots of churches believe taking grants from the gov. equals letting the gov. in the door to micromanaging the church. I've read a lot about Faith based initiatives, volunteered at a local faith based non-profit providing free dental, medical, food pantry and clothing to the needy, which gets these grants, and the fear is unfounded.
Part of my job as a volunteer was to apply for the grants, and then keep up on paperwork for accountability. And you can rest assured it takes a full time volunteer/employee to keep up with the stewardship records (Which is a big turn off to churches because they can't find people to do it.)
The government meaning the states. The fed gov. has mandates, but mostly states are on their own. For instance, Health and Family services are run by each state, and each state has different criteria/payment amounts/stipulations/etc. For example in some states eye glasses are covered for the poor, in other states they aren't. Also welfare rates, qualifications, welfare to work program guidelines, differ from state to state.
But if that's not the answer, then what? Religion didn't work either. And families are not as geographically close now as 50 years ago, which leads to being virtual strangers outside the nuclear.
Really? Because that means (this being America and all) that ALL religious groups could potentially be taking care of your child. Christians, Jews, Mormons, Muslims, Wiccans, Davidians, Scientologists, etc. If a parent dies, or is unfit, who decides where to place the child? Sure you might say, well I'm a Christian, my kid would be taken care of by other Christians. But if you're unfit, you don't get to choose.
I was in a social work program (as I think you know) and 9 times out of 10 if a family member, church member, family friend stepped up and volunteered to foster a child being removed from a home, the state allowed it.
Why? It's cheaper to pay a social worker to make visits and check on the child, than to pay for the kid's food, clothing, shelter, etc. But you know what? People don't step up all the time, and for older kids, I'd go out on a limb and say "most" of the time.
For instance, would you take one of your Sunday school kids in to raise right now , today, if his parents were considered unfit and he was going to a state run group home or foster care with a family that wasn't Christian? How about more than one teen?
Foster parents are vetted, though in some states not very well (the criteria on that is also unique to each state). Which is why some states only use foster care as a last resort, instead relying on group homes that are age appropriate and run by a team of trained parents/social workers/etc.
Because the gov. can't "promote" religion I know from experience having lived in said group home, we were taken to many different religious institutions and left to decide for ourselves.
I'd much rather my child be placed in a "neutral" house where social workers come and go on a daily basis, than with a family I don't know. Foster families are NOT generally required to be as transparent as group homes. And frankly most of the "Christians" I know, I wouldn't trust to raise my child. (Not that I would get a say...)
Is there room for improvement in social programs dealing with children? HECK YES! The main reason I went into Public Administration is because I believe there are vital, necessary gov. programs essential to the health and prosperity of our country. We need fiscally conservative public administrators running them, tweaking them, looking for better ways to do things, and when appropriate, eliminating them.
First - even though we have separation between church and state, that does not exempt church non-religious activities from government oversight. So the answer to the first is also twofold. First, that it is a cop out by government to absolve themselves of their mandated responsibility. And second, the government is "of the people", so it is OUR obligation, not some uncaring faceless bureaucrat, to make sure such abuses do not occur. It was a failure on OUR part that your situation was not remedied earlier.
Second, Charity is SUPPOSED to be voluntary. Coerced charity is not charity at all, and perhaps that is why liberals are, as a group, the least charitable folks around. They see everything as charity, regardless of the intent or the willingness of the giver. Charity is done voluntarily, not at the end of a gun.
I understand your points Tova, but they reflect the problems our society has created for itself. Forced charity, which is no charity, and looking at Government as some mythical beast that is not "We the People". That Mythical beast has stopped being the nice old grandpa and become the tyrannical master of its former masters. And we have lost our freedom because of our own apathy.
It is. Nothing about humans are perfect. We are MOSTLY a capitalistic country, but not pure. The things you point out are the socialist part of the society. Just because they exist in a predominantly (for now) capitalistic society does not make them capitalistic.
No, that is communism. Socialism is just the government owning the means of production, And your dictionary.com definition is true. And that is why we are not a socialistic society (yet), but parts of it clearly are. It is not an either or, but rather a matter of degrees. Only a fool would argue we are not more socialistic today than we were 3 years ago. You do not nationalize giant companies - whatever the stated purpose or noble idea behind it is - without moving society from one pole - Capitalism - to the other - Socialism.
Only a fool would expect less laws and gov. involvement in a country where the population is growing. The more people in a space, the more mediation required. For instance, NY city has tons of "nanny" laws about spitting on the sidewalk, where you place trash at the curb, etc. Things people who live in less populated areas scoff about and believe they'd move before putting up with that crap.
TYet these laws proved necessary. More people congregated in a small area, more rules required to ensure everyone gets proper use of public spaces their taxes help maintain. Without them some jackass always ends up ruining it for everyone.
I really don't care what it's called. Forced Charity, taxes, whatever. Expecting people to pay for the mechanics of a government and society they benefit from every single day in myriad ways just seems like common sense to me.
That's nice in theory but solves nothing. When no one is held personally responsible for doing something, then nothing gets done. You can talk about "we the people" and responsibility till the cows come home, but most "we the people" are too busy working and raising our own families to even know where to begin when it comes to taking abused/neglected/orphaned children into the home. And most don't want to know. Not their child. Not their problem. Short sighted, but a dominant mentality none the less.
Ever had a 4 hour board meeting and nothing gets accomplished for all the talk? When our electric went out with the ice storm, last week, I waited for my cell phone to charge in the vehicle before calling it in. An hour after power was out, I was the first person on our grid to call. Everyone assumes someone else will take care of it.
I don't understand this sentence. What is a cop out?
I just checked with a good friend who is a MSW. She said outside of breaking the law (abuse, etc) it certainly does if the orphanage/group home is privately funded and accepts no gov. grants/money.
I know Doc already answered this and I agree with what he said but also roads, and national defense is something that is used by everyone equally. What you're advocating is like DG said holding a gun to our heads and telling us we have to pay for other children who are not ours as well as the responsibility of caring for our own while others abdicate their responsiblilty. You're telling us that we need to be enablers instead of holding these parents hand to the fire. It's not the same as roads and national defense.
I believe if these parents cannot care for their children then they need to let them go via adoption. There are so many parents out there with aching arms because they cannot have a child. I just heard about another case where a newborn baby was found in a toilet. We are never going to be able to completely stop this and enabling parents seems to be making things worse, not better as we continually see these things happening.
I would definitely consider it. Remember I did take in foreign kids on a regular basis who were stranded in this country while going to school here and had no place to go during breaks. Not quite the same thing but our house had many kids from various backgrounds living with us on and off.
some are, some aren't. There are alot of individuals and churches I know of (including ours) who are doing our best to help the comunities around us. We are never going to take the place of a natural parent. But that doesn't mean we aren't helping out and yes, bringing kids into our homes if needed.
but yet somebody did call. You did. Up until then no one was worried about it. Whenever I called in the past I was just one of many who did. Eventually when it gets bad enough someone will call. See, what's happened is the government has been a nanny for so long we've just let them. That's what happens when you're enabled for so long. You sit back and let them. You're just proving our point. Government interference has made us lazy not better.
Wow. Yes, that is acceptable for electricity I suppose. But forgive me if I find it totally unacceptable to wait until it gets bad enough when it comes to providing children with basic human needs. By that definition we should only feed the starving, mend the critically ill, and remove children from the most sadistic homes.
I'm not for that.
This just isn't accurate. I suggest you read the Historical Overview of Child Protective Services. In a nut shell, as far back as our roots in English Common Law, the government has defined a certain standard in child rearing and enforced it by removal of children when it is violated. Why? Because children are a resource that must be nurtured/reared/fed/tended.
As far as I can tell (and please correct me if I'm wrong) the church has never (in this country) been a substantial child protective/care provider on a massive (which is what the numbers show social programs dealing with kids to be, MASSIVE) level.
Consider it, sure. Many people do. But there is many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. There are at least 70,000 kids right now in the system that need adoption...you can make it one or two less in just a very short few interviews. There are @ 7,478 just in Florida as of 2010 (childrensdefense.org)....Whatchya waiting for?
I'm not picking on you, just making a point. The idea sounds good, sounds Christian, but somewhere between the idea and the actual doing, things don't pan out, life happens. Meanwhile these kids aren't getting any younger, and new ones are brought in everyday.
How exactly is removing children from an abusive/neglectful home enabling parents??
First of all, I don't know too may parents who would just "let them go." I can think of a prime example from right here on JU of someone allowing their children to live in squalor and screaming harassment/law suits/etc whenever authorities came to check on/speak for those little ones. How was that enabling?
There are plenty of children ready for adoption right now (approx 70,000 in 2009, though other figures go as high as 115,000 in 2010). Again, like Doc you are long on "should/need-to-do" and short on exactly how that is accomplished without government. Even with a centralized (at the state leve) system, with many people devoting their entire professional lives to children, full time all week long, there are still 70-115,000 children ready for adoption and no one from the public stepping up to fill that void.
Not individuals. Not churches.
Talking about it? Sure. Adopting? Some, but not so much.
Saying there are "aching" arms sounds good on the surface, but reality doesn't bare it out. They must be awfully picky empty arms if we still have so many children ready for adoption but no one to adopt them.
Trends in Foster Care and Adoption—FY 2002-FY 2009(Based on data submitted by states as of July 29, 2010)Source: AFCARS data, U.S. Children's Bureau, Administration for Children, Youth and Families
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/trends.htm
This is where we agree to disagree I guess. I do believe we are responsible for all the children in this country. (How can anyone be pro-life and not believe this? Do children matter less this side of the uterus?)
I'm not advocating for bad parents (that would be enabling) I am advocating for the children who have no voice; no choice; and whether you like it or not, are a resource this country can't afford to squander. And if we do, we'll all live to regret it.
One does not beget the other. All the more people still must obey the same laws as when there were fewer. We do not HAVE to have more laws just because we have more people. We do have more laws, but that has nothing to do with the number of people (just look at states losing population and the number of laws they have versus 3 or 10 years ago).
I disagree - and that is the very core of nannyism. The laws we have do not make us more civil, nor less crowded. They are just the same rules that parents have for children, and that is why it is called nannyism. We do not NEED a seat belt law. It is YOUR choice (or should be). We do not NEED laws about texting and walking. People do stupid things. And sometimes die from them. And laws are not going to change that fact.
Forcing people to pay for a common defense is benefiting all. Forcing people to pay for Chris's Addadictomy is not. You are trying to mix the 2 and cry fowl when indeed, it may be the law, but it is hardly equitable, fair or just. it will never be fair, so do not even try to get there. The optimum outcome is equitable, as that is the only thing that is quantifiable.
The cop out is trying to say "separation of church and state" when it comes to the welfare of children in a church run sanctuary. regardless of who is running it, it still has to follow the rules of society as it is extracurricular to the belief system. Therefore, the government still has to monitor them.
Read the bolded part. That is ALL the government should be responsible for in the first place! What would you expect of any institution? If they obey the law, then they are doing good - or the law has to be changed.
I wholeheartedly agree! But holding a gun to my head and saying "you must do this" is not taking responsibility. It is a cop out. And that is what we have now. Liberals holding you hostage to THEIR "shoulda's", not yours or mine. I can take care of my "shoulda's". I understand not everyone can. But you just threw the baby out with the bathwater. No one can take care of their "shoulda's" because you no longer have the option.
Really? I think its just one very crass way of saying...you live here, you prosper here, you enjoy the freedom our ancestors bled for, now it's your turn to help the next generation.
First you say we don't need more laws, and then here you say we need to change them. As I'm sure you're aware, there are many immoral and potentially harmful things to do to children that aren't spelled out in the law. But that's really off topic.
My whole point in this conversation is simple..certain social programs benefit everyone in society, and every one above poverty level should help pay for them. This is not a license for bigger gov. In fact the mechanisms are already in place, but consolidation and elimination of duplication need to be done. We could actually do more with less, if people would just agree certain social programs are necessary for the prosperity of the nation and begin there.
It's not a cop out. If religious (or any) institution uses tax money to care for children, they need to prove they're doing exactly what they say they are.
And caring for the nation's children benefits all too in the long run. That's my point.
I don't even know how to answer this Doc. Without law there is chaos. Without laws someone could walk in your house, kill you and move in. That's not a Nanny state, that's civilization. I'm not talking about seat belt laws and things you do in the privacy of your home (which does not effect society negatively)...I'm talking about laws that govern public places, and shared resources...and since I consider children a resource, laws pertaining to the proper care and maintenance of them...lol
This doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe I'm off my game tonight. What you're saying is states that have a larger population make laws to ensure basic rights aren't violated, but when people leave they don't take them off the books? lol. That's pretty standard practice and the reason we still have laws like in Alabama where wearing a mask in public is illegal, even on Halloween. Laws are rarely repealed.
Giving some one a moral obligation is not the same as coercion. Again, coercion is not a noble activity, and rarely in the best interest of anyone involved.
Note the qualifier. If is the biggest word in the english language. I did not say we need more laws. I said IF the laws are not working, change them. Change means making them work. It does not mean ADD. To verify this fact, go to your Outlook Tools/Account Settings and check out the buttons. You have ADD CHANGE DELETE. There is a reason that add and change are separate.
We can go around and around until we churn ourselves into butter. But you seem to be missing that we are saying the same thing (at least with your summarization quoted above). I think the confusion comes from your belief that I am advocating NO LAWS. While "too many" can be taken to the extreme of "none". that is not my position.
great! grab 200 million other Americans and make it part of the constitution. I would support it in that regard. But I will disagree with you now. It is our MORAL obligation, not our fiduciary requirement.
This affirms my suspicion that you are taking my position of "too many" to mean none. Nowhere have I advocated no laws. However laws that say "no murder" are not the same as saying "Thou Shalt Wear a seat belt". The latter is nannyism, the former a requirement for a civilized society.
No, I was refuting your contention that we need more laws because we have more people. We do not. The number of people we have is not a prerequisite for the number of laws we have since all people (most of the time - congress manages to exempt itself) are subject to the same laws. You do not need a law saying "murdering Southern Sudanese is illegal" since we already have a law saying nurdering another person is illegal.
This is too far off topic, and maybe needs its own thread. Each law, or potential law should be weighed individually imo. First to relevance. Second to redundancy. Third, to constitutional rights. (Not necessarily in that order.)
Which in a nut shell means, I ain't doing it until I'm forced. No matter how bad the country needs it and it'll benefit us. To hell with the kids, to hell with the country, I got me and mine, that's all that matters.
Good thing our ancestors didn't think like that.
Got it. You aren't anti-law, but anti-NANNY law. Clear. (Except for the comment about the constitution above...lol)
Taxes are not noble. The act of war is not exactly a "noble" activity...but sometimes it takes ugly to get beneficial things done. Especially when dealing with certain dead beat mentalities.
Good codicil, otherwise we would have had more than one problem. But second (to the constitution) is does it infringe on freedom. What you should do is not what you must do. The difference is called freedom.
No. I am not forced to donate to charity. I am not forced to donate blood. I am not forced to help an old lady across the street. Yet I do. And MOST people do. But I am not going to force ALL PEOPLE to. Again, the difference is freedom. We are free to be idiots and cretins. You may not like it, I may not like it, that not all are as generous or big hearted, but that is not our place to force them to be (for in the forcing, the act no longer is charity but becomes servitude - the opposite of freedom).
Good Point! And they had no laws that REQUIRED them to be magnanimous. Your statement belies the meat of your contention.
Nanny is the most insidious. But not the only laws that are superfluous, demeaning, or, IMHO, unconstitutional.
Again,. taken to extreme, I agree with you. In moderation, yes they are. WWII and the disposal of Hitler was not noble? I think 20m Jews, Slavs, and Poles would disagree with you - if they still had a voice left. War can be Noble (It often is not), and taxes are Noble when they actually do provide for all a common good. not for select few, but for all. Defense being the most apparent, but others, like roads (since all use them, whether as a driver or passenger). are examples.
Nice article and comments ... looks like I am out of my league here though. Woulda, shoulda, coulda, right (?), wrong (?) all make for good discussions and I am so happy to have run across this one … but the problem is the parents (the adults). I know there are many religious practitioners in these comments and (except for the idiots who are just hateful), I would have no problem with any of you managing my own children (in my demise) or any of the millions of parents in America who are honest citizens trying to succeed in life. But the choice is not ours to make (without planning of course).
So it always comes back to the ADULTS. It is ‘We the People” who elected all the practicing criminals in our Government … through our votes and because we allowed our own society to plunge into debauchery with ever diminishing moral fortitude. We gave them the power to damn near do anything they want to do ... and they do! We were obviously lied to by the bureaucratic children destroying everything America was Great for … and our freedom.
We have been bouncing back and forth from good guy to bad guy, well forever. This (R) will be our salvation from the bad (D). When (R) has done as much damage as possible, he becomes the bad guy and we elect a new (D) savior. Back and forth … I mention this because I can go back to most major elections and the same brouhaha we are being fed today (with time corrections) could and was used in every one of those elections, all the way back to the early 70’s …
So if we are so inept that we cannot resolve (or elect people who can) at least some of our own corruption adequately (Oh contraire) in 40 years … what do you think is going to change in our future? Are the bad people electing these miscreants, I think not? I like to think most people (generalization Doc) have a good heart and intentions but are undereducated, ill-informed and brainwashed conditioned for things of interest to their circles and usually to the detriment of most outside their circles (the rest of us).
I do not have the answer here but as cruel as this may sound, the children are secondary right now (you know I am not talking about any kind of abuse so please don’t start) because if we cannot straighten out our adult problems and bring some kind of normality and sanity to our lives neither you or I or most of the children will have much choice left at all. It all comes back to the adults. So in this eventuality (as things indicate) and if “We the People” do not make some forward progress soon … well I am just glad I am older and will not have to witness much of it.
Honesty, conviction and morality exist in my own atheistic circle, but I find these qualities few and far between in the world around me (collectively Doc, ok). I am sure everyone here is upstanding and all, but we do not even make a dent in the number of people surrounding us. Well lets see how much trouble I get here
The word Liberal and its derivitives Liberalism, is essentially a notion from the 18th century when State, Civi Society and Market three huge overarching concepts came todefine the rlationship betwee individuals, groups of individuals and the structures of power over them. In this context a liberal would be one who would like the State to be non interventionist, the Market free (Adam Smith) and Civil Society enlightened. Now none of these ideas hold much water.
Why I am a liberal.
There is no such thing as choice. You live in a deterministic universe and have no free will. (scientifically proven since the 70s, and never been disproved in a lab since then)
Leaving people to their own devices and then punishing them for the outcome is not only unfair, but will always do more harm then good. What is truly despicable is playing the percentages to mitigate this, and then making a buck off of it. eg: Policy A will produce +15% criminals, but the cost of mitigating this nets us 8% profit.... never mind if we settled for 4% profit while putting some into a social "entitlement" we would only make 4% criminals. (this is actually what happen behind the scenes when they crunch the stats based on previous history vs new policy)
That is not to say liberal leaders are doing the best job considering the above, but ultimately what needs to happen in society is for a sort of "programming" for citizenship to create a stable baseline of fairness.
You can't do that without everyone chipping in, and without everyone being onboard and able to understand the human condition.
One school of political thought is closer to this then the other.
Ha, ha, ha, tell that to the pro-abortion crowd!
So you are one of those who are tainted by a materialistic philosophy which posits we do not act according to our own deliberate choosing!!!!. They are mistaken and need to come back to common sense.
It is certain that man has free will, a fact of which we are all conscious. I know quite well that I am responding to you becasue I have freely chosen to do so. Had I wished I could have just read it, ignored it and gone to another site. At any moment that I am typing this, I'm free to cease. telling us we have no free will would be about as intelligible as telling us we don't exist.
Determinism is a pessimistic philosophy, destructive of morals and true religion, Making men a mere automation and a slave of his environment or heredity, it denies the essential notions of imputability and responsibility and scorns free homage of mind and will which we owe to Our Creator and Lord God.
There are no facts, scientific or otherwise, which justify the denial of free will. The denial of free will is absurd and any position which can be reduced collapses by the very fact.
Almighty God made man's will, but He did not "make it up" for man so that it was determined independently of man in a given direction. Man makes the choice his will enables him to make though he need not make that choice. If man exercises his power in a wrong way, it is not the power which causes him to do so. It is the man's own soul and personality which uses its will wrongly.
Well yes lula, proving (not telling, but proving) to people that they have no free will and that religion is a lie generally makes them hostile and non-productive.
Policy makers need to be addressing this reality with kid gloves behind the scenes for people like you, but that is neither here nor there on topic.
This is also not to say that I hate Conservatives, they have many outlooks that agree with my sentiments and liberals have many that don't, but when it comes down to it...
As a species we have alot of growing up to do to make things better for our lot in the universe, and one of these "labels" leads down the right path eventually.
Orion posts:
But no one has ever proven nor could ever prove that we have no free will or that historic Christianity is a lie.
Proof of free will stands. The fact of free will we know by reason, revelation and by direct consciousness, just as we know our own identity.
Free will is a noble gift of Almighty God which gives men their true dignity and makes it possible for them to attain an eternal supernatural destiny.
Free will is the capability of self determination. It is "that property in virtue of which a rational agent, when all the conditions required to elicit a volition are present, can either put forth or abstain from that volition." ( Maher, Psychology 395.)
God Himself has given us the power of volitional activity.
Free will is not "motiveless volition". It does not imply choice without motive, but choice between motives.
We are aware that we can freely guide our own thoughts selecting, selecting if we choose the least attractive. We are aware that, when 2 alternative courses of action lie before us, we can freely deliberate upon their respective merits, reflecting, inquiring and examining the reasons for each side,
We are conscious that our final choice is free. We can go to the store and buy vanilla or chocolate ice cream. We can invest our money in stocks, bonds or gold. We can resist an evil thought or consent to it.
The moral consciousness of mankind points to the freedom of the will. The sense of moral obligation is written in every man's heart. It is as certain as the uniformity of nature. We know that we are bound to do right and to avoid wrong. We also know that we are absolutely free to avoid evil.
This is veering a bit off topic, but I am curious how you can claim you have free will when your consciousness lags a half second behind reality?
That is to say, consciousness is generated by work done from the brain, and this process takes a 1/2 second. So all the "decisions" rising up to your awareness are pre-prepared. This has been proven by work done by Benjamin Libet in the 80s, and reproduced consistently in labs across the world.
Where the illusion of free will occurs is in the ability to veto these conscious impulses.
The only unknown in all of this is how the "veto" process manifests, and only because we have yet to have a testable unified field theory that can be verified. When we do, we can determine if chaos theory is a real manifestation of a self-contained complex system, or if we simply lack the technological ability to map a deterministic cause of systems described by chaos theory.
Ultimately what this means; is the process of vetoing a conscious impulse 100% deterministic, or random? Regardless of the outcome, you really do not have free will. You cannot cause your own causality, and this has been measured and verified and available to anyone who actually bothers to pick up a book on the subject or read some lab papers.
I'm not going to get involved in the Christianity debate in any detail, but the main points specific to Christianity are; Christianity has a proven history of assimilating the belief systems of other cultures for harmonious integration of said cultures. Christianity has a proven history of revising doctrine based on evolving societal outlooks. The correctness of Christian leadership outlooks from previous generations can be compared and measured to knowledge at the time, and then outright annihilated by modern knowledge in technological, societal and biological sciences.
Christianity (and all religions for that matter) comes from one place only, man.
This is not to say I am an atheist. I am simply agnostic towards the concept of god. I know enough about allelomimetic physics and our lack of knowledge in the category of "depth of complexity", in addition to our obvious ignorance to what is outside of our universe to be able to say for sure there is no such thing as "god". However the concept of "a possible self-aware allelomimetic cosmic pattern that could be construed as god" is incompatible with every religion I have ever looked at, and is very difficult to explain to someone who has never picked up even modern layman books on physics, consciousness and societal systems.
Yes, we've done a good job of that but then again, M-Post began his article by saying, let's start a discourse.
That we've done and he's been patient with us so far.
.....................................................................................
All this is interesting but doesn't change the fact that man has free will. As I said before the moral consciousness of man points to the freedom of will. The act of free choice is itself made on the basis of conscious judgments. Free will should be considered more as an ability to select between influences. One's own awareness (consciousness) is witness to the fact that he chooses consciously.
If his belief of free will is illusory, then no datum of consciousness would seem to have any truth value....talk about chaos!!!
You deny that man is the master of his own actions, yet on account of consciousness, you have the power of presenting your argument courteously or offensively. Why endeavor to convince others that man has not free will? The answer is simple for man can deny free will in words, but he cannot possibly harmonize his actions with such a denial.
Let's go back to one of your previous assertions.
Leaving people to their own devices and then punishing them for the outcome is not only unfair, but will always do more harm then good.
Denial of free will is as absurd as denial that man is a human being for intellect and free will differentiate man from beasts. The most highly moral human relations would be impossible if he is devoid of free will. Freedom to choose between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil, love and hate, loyalty and treason, temperance and drunkenness, purity and lust, law and tyranny, would be obsolete if man is an irresponsible being.
Unless there is mental illness, a person is personally responsible for his thoughts, words and actions (deeds). If you had not free will, you could not deny the God that made you.
Have you read Stephen M. Barr's "Modern Physics and Ancient Faith"? If you haven't, it should be available at your public library.
Barr is indeed a modern layman, a really interesting, gifted one. He has a chapter on determinism and free will, quantum theory and free will. On page 189, the last sentence in that chapter describes YOU.
"It is ironic that the modern materialist skeptic disbelieves even in the reality of his own freedom, both moral and intellectual."
Blah blah blah … got any statistics to back this up? You might explain how ‘free choice’ can be determined in a lab too. From the perspective of the 'known' universe I agree that without the intervention of man (if we ever decide to grow up) or our equivalents elsewhere in the universe or of course those pesky universal quarks we have not yet discovered pop up, our fate is predetermined and unavoidable universally … but this is completely beside the point and meaningless unless you enjoy talking in billions of years chunks. No matter our flavor of brainwashing (except Lula and co. of course), we do not think or act in any manor on a universal, galactic, solar or even planetary scale … ever.
When I am held at knifepoint by some prick demanding my wallet … I am awash with free will up to and including the point when I pull out my Kimber … free will with meaning.
What nonsense is this ... do you really live in a book (or in papers)? I think you need to look more at actual life especially as it pertains to the individual … reality check here. I have been persuaded against my ‘free will’ more times than I like to remember and it had nothing to do with statistics or (much) choice … it had to do with the reality of the situation and the perceived options at the time. Deterministic universe had nothing at all to do with this. This crap may work for the universe and co. … but it is meaningless to the people you are trying to apply it to.
PS. You banter proverbs and superstition with Lula … you are destined to fail!!!
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
