Juan Cole Gets It

[Rspaight]

I'm surprised you threw "private gun ownership" in there...most liberals would go apoplectic hearing that suggestion.

The way I see it, you can't pick and choose that kind of thing. The cost of freedom is putting up with things you don't like, in exchange for having the right to do things other people don't like.

At least in the arena of consensual activity, that seems fair to me.

Ryan

[Ess Ay Cee Dee]

If anyone is up for taking another test, go to http://politics.beasts.org/ for one that was designed by a guy who felt the "Political Compass" wasn't good enough.

For the record, my scores are:

left/right: -8.9133
pragmatism: +1.6399

[Rspaight]

Coming back around to the original post in this thread, here's an interesting counter-view:

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO. Via Daily Kos, I see Juan Cole is proposing that we get rid of the state's role in marriage altogether and replace it with a "civil contract" into which individuals of any gender can enter, leaving "marriage" itself as a purely religious institution ratified only by churches (and, presumably, synagogues and mosques). This strikes me as one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time and a totally counterproductive approach to the question of the hyper-politicization of the idea of gay marriage. Basically, Cole is proposing to destroy marriage as we know it in order to accommodate gay people's desire to marry. It is incomprehensible to me that such an idea would tame passions on this topic; it can only inflame them.

Basically, what Cole is arguing is that all marriage be abolished and replaced with civil union–like arrangements. Currently, gays in Vermont can enter into a civil union as a state contract and then be married religiously by whatever church, such as the Unitarians, will perform such a ceremony. And in the states where civil unions exist, gays have most of the same the rights as married heterosexuals with regard to each other. Cole is proposing transforming straight marriage into something more like gay marriage in states with civil union laws, where the legal and religious aspects of the contract and institution are disentangled.

Here's Cole:

[stuff already quoted above snipped]

This is exactly the kind of thing that religious conservatives have long warned gay marriage would lead to and why they are so agitated about stopping any effort to allow it. Proposing to do exactly what conservatives fear most -- abolish marriage as we know it -- in order to accommodate gay people can only make the anti–gay marriage blowback that much stronger.

Further, any arrangement that disentangled marriage from the legal protections that a century and a half of feminist agitating have finally got enshrined into marriage law would likely have an extremely deleterious effect on the rights of women over time. And while gay people have little to lose in the current debate over gay marriage, which they do not yet have the right to, straight women are about to lose a whole heck of a lot of rights they currently enjoy because of the anti–gay marriage backlash of 2004. People on the left need to do a little more balanced thinking about the trade-offs involved in taking various positions when there are so many constituencies with so much at stake in the marriage/family/reproductive rights arena. This is not an easy puzzle to solve; there are lots of moving parts.

Besides, what if you believe in the institution of marriage as a secular social institution with an abiding moral and historical force? I know plenty of people married in non-religious ceremonies for whom the institution retains its moral and spiritual meaning as the lifelong union of two individuals and the social union of two families and the basic moral framework within which to have a family, even absent any religious imprimatur. Marriage has all kinds of different meanings for different people and in different cultures -- think arranged marriages -- but it is an incredibly radical thing in the Anglo-American legal and historical framework to propose the idea of getting the government out of the straight marriage business altogether and replacing it with a series of genderless contracts.

I know everyone is all agitated about how to solve the dilemma of the Democrats and the backlash against the idea of gay marriage that in 2004 contributed to their failure to gain office, but one word of advice: You're not going to solve anything if you start mucking about with straight marriage. You're just not.

[Dob]

Smoking could also affect health case costs across the board. And if an uninsured person gets hurt in a wreck, we may end up footing the bill for that person.

Even if we assume that this person is insured -- or even wealthy enough to pay cash out of pocket -- he is still taking up a hospital bed and requiring the attention of caregivers. Paying for those services may not account for costs associated with the scarcity of that care.

And either activity could shorten a lifespan, which would affect not only the individual, but their family, friends, and community as well.

Exactly. A smoker who destroys his health may be oblivious to the burden he places upon his wife and family, who may be making tremendous sacrifices to take care of him. Yet the decision to smoke was (and continues to be) "his" business...it doesn't seem fair to me that his family has no say in the matter of whether he smokes or not.

[Dob]

On the surface, yes, anyone who can work should...However, life is rarely that clean-cut.

I was thinking more along the lines of "prudent" behavior for the grasshopper, rather than actual work. The fable could be restructured with both the grasshopper and the ants all starting with the same pile of provisions. The grasshopper foolishly doesn't conserve and winds up running out in the middle of winter.

Let me restate the dilemma with a more "real world" situation. Suppose your brother is involved in some sort of destructive behavior. Seeing this, you try various methods to help and advise him, but he invariably sees all these attempts as meddling and refuses your help. His situation grows worse, and your continued attempts to help him "before he loses everything" finally provoke him to yell "mind your own f*cking business" and he cuts off all contact with you.

Months pass, and one day you get that knock on the door. It's your brother, tearfully telling you that he's lost everything, he's hit rock bottom, and has nowhere to go.

Do you say to him, "Remember when you told me to mind my own business?" and slam the door in his face? Or do you take him in?

I think that most of us would take him in. Knowing that this is a possibility, do we have a right to intervene in his life earlier, saving him much anguish, even though it isn't our business?

In a nutshell, the problem is that "minding your own business" is supposed to cut both ways, but it doesn't. When things are going well, you want people to stay out of your affairs. When disaster strikes, you'd like nothing better than for everyone to make your problems their problems as well and help you.

Are we duty bound to allow people to continue their destructive behavior until they destroy their lives...and then are we also duty bound to help them pick up the pieces?

While I don't believe that people are complete "tabula rasa" at birth, it seems foolish to say that their experiences and upbringing don't play a huge part in the way they behave as adults.

I agree. It is quite humbling, as a parent, to see clear personality traits in your children when they are but a few months old and realize that your influence won't be as pervasive as you thought.

Whatever the actual split between genetics and environment, the difficulty I have is that any blame placed on the environment raises a serious contradiction in my moral beliefs.

Specifically, it is a bedrock principle in most religions that your goodness or badness has a direct bearing on how you will be judged by your Creator. If your environment has an influence, then your goodness or badness is at least partially beyond your control. If Hitler said to God, "Hey, if I would have been born in a different place and time, I would not have become the evil person that I became. And if a person who led a good life was born in my place, would he not have done the same as I? If so, how can anyone judge me?"

I don't have an answer to this question.

Would the world have been better off without Martin Luther King, Jr.? Without Gandhi?

But we also wouldn't have had the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and possibly many wars (though a good many of them would have been fought anyway using a different excuse). Is the trade-off worth it?

[lukpac]

The way I see it, you can't pick and choose that kind of thing. The cost of freedom is putting up with things you don't like, in exchange for having the right to do things other people don't like.

If the effects of guns were purely personal and private, I'd agree. The issue of course though is that of the effect on society - do guns make us less safe as a society? I'm not sure we'll ever know.

And I agree with Ryan on the religion issue. Religion as a personal guide is fine IMO. Not my bag, but fine. The problem comes when religion turns into a force that must overtake all others. Like taking rights away from people because they are against *your* religion. Etc...

[Rspaight]

Even if we assume that this person is insured -- or even wealthy enough to pay cash out of pocket -- he is still taking up a hospital bed and requiring the attention of caregivers. Paying for those services may not account for costs associated with the scarcity of that care.

The notion that one only "deserves" care if one is blameless for the injury concerns me. By that logic, we should ban alcohol, cheeseburgers, sports, skydiving, swimming and roller coasters, since they all can result in disease or injury without any tangible benefit to society.

Are we duty bound to allow people to continue their destructive behavior until they destroy their lives...and then are we also duty bound to help them pick up the pieces?

As to the first, no. If we care about someone, we're duty bound to help them if they are clearly headed for grief. If they're family, we can have them hospitalized, for example. If we're legally powerless, though, we have little choice but to do what we can and hope it breaks through.

As for the second, if they are again someone we care about, I think so. What is the alternative? Banning destructive behavior doesn't work. People are going to do stupid things. It might give one some moral satisfaction to let them suffer what they've wrought, but the nobler path is to forgive.

At least for a while. Of course, there are always those who will never respond to kindness. Deciding when to let go is one of the most difficult decisions in life, but forgiveness isn't a bottomless well. In those cases, turning someone away may be the best thing that can be done for them. I know those are impossibly vague platitudes, but reality seldom behaves in a way that can be encompassed in a few short paragraphs.

How does the morality of dealing with those close to you relate to dealing with society at the governmental level? I'm a believer in the social contract. If you contribute to society, you have a right to expect something in return, and that for me includes a safety net for those that make foolish choices. I don't pretend to know how best to deal with freeloaders, but I do know that we can't design the system around them.

But we also wouldn't have had the Salem witch trials, the Inquisition, the Crusades, and possibly many wars (though a good many of them would have been fought anyway using a different excuse). Is the trade-off worth it?

It's hardly a secret that I'm not a fan of organized religion. Personally, I feel it does more harm than good -- in the way it tribalizes people, the way it closes minds, and the way it encourages mindless obedience. If I could wave a magic wand and turn the world into hard-working non-smoking atheist liberals, I would.

Unfortunately, I would then be guilty of the same things I dislike about organized religion -- forcing people to conform to my own personal ideal of behavior. Religion brings peace and purpose to many people, and turns others into dangerous moralists. Sort of like how some own guns responsibly and others don't, and some can eat cheeseburgers in moderation and others can't.

I think the best we can do is to educate people the best we can and hope that enough can see beyond their own desires and fears.

Ryan

[Patrick M]

Not to derail this thread, but I find atheism hard to swallow. It seems to me that atheism presupposes that you know something that is unknowable. Just as believers believe in something that is unknowable.

I don't find the idea of a god unthinkable...I do find the idea of a god that "cares" what goes on in this world (e.g., answers prayers) more or less unthinkable.

[Rspaight]

It seems to me that atheism presupposes that you know something that is unknowable. Just as believers believe in something that is unknowable.

Warning: extremely tedious exercise in hair-splitting follows.

I see it breaking down into belief and knowledge. Whether or not one is agnostic (literally, "doesn't know") depends on whether one feels they *know* whether god(s) exist or not. At the same time, (a)theism reflects one's *belief* or *disbelief* in the existence of god(s).

These are two different things. Knowledge is not requisite for belief -- in fact, some would argue that it is antithetical. (What's the point in "believing" in something if you *know* it to be true?)

By those lights, I'd call myself an agnostic atheist. I do not believe in god(s). However, knowledge requires evidence and proof. You can't prove a negative, and thus it's impossible to prove that god(s) don't exist. On the other hand, I've never seen anything I consider proof or evidence of the existence of god(s). So, since I admit I can't *know* if god(s) exist, but do not *believe* in such a thing, I'm both agnostic and atheistic.

It's also entirely possible to be an agnostic theist, to believe in god(s) but not profess to know for certain.

Finally, there are of course theists who claim knowledge and proof, and atheists who claim the same. However, I am highly suspicous of anyone, theist or atheist, that claims *not* to be agnostic. You can believe in something with every fiber of your being and still not "know."

Ryan

[Dob]

The notion that one only "deserves" care if one is blameless for the injury concerns me.

It's not that the person doesn't "deserve" care.

I was trying to make two points. One, there are "costs" to all of society for the destructive behavior (like smoking) of a single individual (unless he lives on an island). Two, those costs can't be simply summed up in dollars and cents.

Unfortunately, I would then be guilty of the same things I dislike about organized religion -- forcing people to conform to my own personal ideal of behavior.

Well said.

[Dob]

On the other hand, I've never seen anything I consider proof or evidence of the existence of god(s).

Whether one calls it "God" or "aliens" or whatever, I think we have to believe in some sort of sentient higher power (as opposed to something like "mother nature").

For me, the incredible intelligence evident at every level of the design of life (and the whole universe) if proof enough.

[Dob]

I don't find the idea of a god unthinkable...I do find the idea of a god that "cares" what goes on in this world (e.g., answers prayers) more or less unthinkable.

Am I correct in thinking that your reason for this is, "If God really cared, He'd do something about it?"

When I was in (Catholic) grade school I heard it expressed another way -"Why does God allow innocent babies to die?" (BTW, I wasn't satisfied with the answer I was given). The larger question is this - "Is everything that happens on earth 'according to God's will?' If so, how is that compatible with the idea of a 'loving father'?"

I have my own (I believe unique) explanation...when I have it condensed to a reasonable length I'll post it in the "religion" forum for anyone who's interested.

[Rspaight]

Whether one calls it "God" or "aliens" or whatever, I think we have to believe in some sort of sentient higher power (as opposed to something like "mother nature").

For me, the incredible intelligence evident at every level of the design of life (and the whole universe) if proof enough.

I can understand that. (It's the urge to anthropomorphize that power and thank it for helping us win football games that loses me.)

What you say is compelling, and a very good reason to *believe*. The humbling intricacy of the natural world is hard to understate. But in regard to what you quoted, it does not IMO constitute proof or evidence of "God" in any real or rigorous way. To me, at least, it's more of a question than an answer. (If a sentient higher power created this fearsomely complex world I perceive, then what created that sentient higher power? And so on.)

Ryan

[Rspaight]

I have my own (I believe unique) explanation...when I have it condensed to a reasonable length I'll post it in the "religion" forum for anyone who's interested.

I think it would be interesting. I don't know as any of us are likely to change our minds about a lot of this, but (for me at least) the conversation is worthwhile anyway.

Ryan

[Patrick M]

What do you call a person who:

a) believes you can't know whether God exists

b) has no strong "belief" one way or the other, but doesn't think it's out of the question that God exists