British artist hung herself after an abortion.
I am consistently amazed at the boastful nature of our culture and its emphasis on choosing sin, and the utter destruction it brings.
We can choose to have sex out of wedlock, yet people are suprised that marriages fail 50% of the time. They attribute it to older and outdated notions and say that marriage as an institution has failed, rather than they as people have failed to keep their vows. Our society consistently clings to its sexual lusts even though it causes marriages to end in divorce, with broken hearted children who can't understand why their parents can't keep their proimses to each other, or to them.
We can choose to kill our own children in the pursuit of "reproductive rights". This is a fallacy on it's face as abortion is not sustaining the right to have sex; at no point in our law has it sought to abbrogate one's right to reproduce or engage in the act of reproduction. What's the result? Women leaving these clinics devastated because the counselors puffed up the result, claiming there would be no guilt, because "it's just a fetus". The guilt was too much for this woman but somehow, I doubt the doctor or the counselors have any regrets over the fact this women who they were responsible for killed herself. In their line of work, their consciences are seared. The value of choice outweighs the value of life, every time.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Monday, February 25, 2008
An exercise.
If we assume that evolutionary processes are entirely responsible for our understanding of morality, how then are we justified in telling someone else that murder is wrong. Note, I used the word wrong. Not, undesireable, but wrong.
If I am a serial killer and rapist as a result of my genetic configuration, on what basis can I be told that I am wrong for doing what my genes command me do to?
Is it not conducive to propagation of the species? No, it's very conducive as a stronger male would be fertilizing many females with that stronger genetic code, producing more dominate males to snuff out the inferior code of those too weak to assert their authority over females.
Has society deemed it is not conducive to the propagation of the species? Yes, but on what basis? Why should that stop the serial rapist? He is only reprimanded if he gets caught. He is only wrong because his genetic code has not infiltrated the gene pool pervasively, yet. It is merely an example of the statistical majority lording their genetic predisposition on the statistical minority. That's not wrong, that's just unlucky. If he kills and rapes enough, then his genetic predisposition will be in the majority. Would it still be wrong then to rape?
That's the answer I want to know. If the majority of males were predisposed serial rapists, would it be wrong to rape?
One would argue that it would be, because it would violate the maxim that the fittest are the ones deemed to survive, and a society of rapists could not survive. Ok, let's assume that.
Why is survival desireable? Nature said so? Are we then, again, saying that an intelligent bright-line rule has developed from non-intelligence?
That's a pretty amazing, unproven, and faith-based statement.
If I am a serial killer and rapist as a result of my genetic configuration, on what basis can I be told that I am wrong for doing what my genes command me do to?
Is it not conducive to propagation of the species? No, it's very conducive as a stronger male would be fertilizing many females with that stronger genetic code, producing more dominate males to snuff out the inferior code of those too weak to assert their authority over females.
Has society deemed it is not conducive to the propagation of the species? Yes, but on what basis? Why should that stop the serial rapist? He is only reprimanded if he gets caught. He is only wrong because his genetic code has not infiltrated the gene pool pervasively, yet. It is merely an example of the statistical majority lording their genetic predisposition on the statistical minority. That's not wrong, that's just unlucky. If he kills and rapes enough, then his genetic predisposition will be in the majority. Would it still be wrong then to rape?
That's the answer I want to know. If the majority of males were predisposed serial rapists, would it be wrong to rape?
One would argue that it would be, because it would violate the maxim that the fittest are the ones deemed to survive, and a society of rapists could not survive. Ok, let's assume that.
Why is survival desireable? Nature said so? Are we then, again, saying that an intelligent bright-line rule has developed from non-intelligence?
That's a pretty amazing, unproven, and faith-based statement.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Question
"Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that increases the information contained in the genome?"
According to Richard Dawkins... well, he didn't give an answer. Well, we are provided with a clip of him later on explaining that evolutionary theory does not espouse that humans or apes evolved from each other but rather a common ancestor, but that doesn't really answer the question, and anyone with a hand in this discussion should be familiar with the theory. Anyone who was forced to attend the secular indoctrination known as public schooling should know that.
Crush a fool in a mortar and pestle with grain, and he will not depart from his foolishness.
According to Richard Dawkins... well, he didn't give an answer. Well, we are provided with a clip of him later on explaining that evolutionary theory does not espouse that humans or apes evolved from each other but rather a common ancestor, but that doesn't really answer the question, and anyone with a hand in this discussion should be familiar with the theory. Anyone who was forced to attend the secular indoctrination known as public schooling should know that.
Crush a fool in a mortar and pestle with grain, and he will not depart from his foolishness.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Comedy in Property.
Often, industrial or federal clients buying a parcel of land will inquire of a property's original title holder or original source for enviornmental liability reasons. Included in my property book is an amusing "response" from a lawyer to a federal agency inquiring about the title to a tract of Louisiana land prior to 1803, presumably because a record of title could not be found in any U.S. records:
Gentlemen,Aside from the poppery, funny stuff.
I am in receipt of your letter from the fifth of this month inquiring as to the state of the title prior to the year of 1803.
Please be advised that in the year 1803 the United States of America acquired the Territory of Louisiana from the Republic of France by purchase. The Republic of France previously acquired title from the Spanish Crown by conquest. Spain acquired title by virtue of the discoveries of one Christopher Columbus, a Genoese sailor who had been duly authorized to embark upon his voyage by Isabella, Queen of Spain. Before granting such authority, Isabella, a pious and cautious woman, obtainted the sanction of His Holiness, the Pope. The Pope is the Vicar on earth of Jesus Christ, the only son and heir apparent of God. God made Louisiana.
Drunk Drivin' Ain't Stoppin' My Party!
If you're abstinate in the alcoholic sense, prepare to be offended. I not only baptize children, but I'm a'ok with alcohol in moderation.
That being said, let me introduce you to Kelly v. Gwinnell.
The basic facts of the case are thus: The plaintiff in this case was struck by a drunk driver who had just left the house of a fellow employee. While there, he had been offered and did in fact consume alcohol. The plaintiff, who had been hit, sued not only the drunk driver, but his fellow employee who served him alcohol and, consequently, their employer under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior.
(The reason for the latter was the plaintiff supposed that they were there discussing business and were therefore acting "in the course of their employment", ergo the employer should be liable.)
Normally, one would only sue the drunk driver, but the plaintiff in this case attempted to assert something called social host liability under the theory that the host, serving the alcohol to a person visibly intoxicated, was the original negligent actor and, the drunk driving was the intervening cause of the civily wrong conduct. They claimed that this conduct was a foreseeable consequence of serving the man alcohol and therefore they should be held liable.
I would agree.
Others would not. The reasoning? It's too great of a burden on society to expect people to be responsible for their drunk social guests. I disagree on two levels.
Imposing this type of liability would coerce society into acting more reasonably and responsibly with regard to alcohol consumption, concievably saving people's lives by pressuring social hosts into either not letting their friends drive home that night or not letting their friends get too drunk to drive.
Is this too great a burden to save lives from drunk drivers? I wouldn't say so. I was in a fraternity before I converted. Rather than letting people drive home, we took their keys and made them sleep on the couches. We had plenty of couches for people to sleep on any we honestly never had an incident where someone left the house and got into a drunk driving accident. We also cut people off when we saw they were getting to be too intoxicated by having some members stay sober on that night. Sounds terribly hard, doesn't it? Somehow a bunch of drunken frat kids can seem to keep it together, so I don't see what the big fuss is about.
Furthermore, the original negligent act is causally responsible for the injury to the plaintiff in two legal senses; in "but-for" causation, and proximate cause.
"But-for" causation is merely saying that, but for the defendant's negligence, the injury to the plaintiff would not have happened. Can we say this here? Certainly. But for the defendant serving the driver alcohol, the wreck would not have occured. This is called being the direct cause.
Additionally, the original negligent act is also the proximate or legal cause of the injury because it is foreseeable that a visibly drunk driver, whom you've been feeding alcohol to, will go out and have a wreck if they drive.
So what's the problem then if there's all this legal causation? There's no duty imposed, which is what social host liability is all about. The law is reluctant to impose a duty here because, as I mentioned earlier, it is argued that it's too great a burden on society.
Since when is it too great a burden on society to act proactively to prevent either their friends or potential victims from being hurt? We have Hollywood actors turn out to PETA protests but I havn't heard of anyone camping out in a tree to persuade legislators or judges to begin imposing a duty on social hosts. I guess our party is too important, our decadence is too valuable. Trade my fun for a life? "Never" is the answer of our society.
I remember the words of Cain when I remember the "social hosts" in this case, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
That being said, let me introduce you to Kelly v. Gwinnell.
The basic facts of the case are thus: The plaintiff in this case was struck by a drunk driver who had just left the house of a fellow employee. While there, he had been offered and did in fact consume alcohol. The plaintiff, who had been hit, sued not only the drunk driver, but his fellow employee who served him alcohol and, consequently, their employer under the legal doctrine of respondeat superior.
(The reason for the latter was the plaintiff supposed that they were there discussing business and were therefore acting "in the course of their employment", ergo the employer should be liable.)
Normally, one would only sue the drunk driver, but the plaintiff in this case attempted to assert something called social host liability under the theory that the host, serving the alcohol to a person visibly intoxicated, was the original negligent actor and, the drunk driving was the intervening cause of the civily wrong conduct. They claimed that this conduct was a foreseeable consequence of serving the man alcohol and therefore they should be held liable.
I would agree.
Others would not. The reasoning? It's too great of a burden on society to expect people to be responsible for their drunk social guests. I disagree on two levels.
Imposing this type of liability would coerce society into acting more reasonably and responsibly with regard to alcohol consumption, concievably saving people's lives by pressuring social hosts into either not letting their friends drive home that night or not letting their friends get too drunk to drive.
Is this too great a burden to save lives from drunk drivers? I wouldn't say so. I was in a fraternity before I converted. Rather than letting people drive home, we took their keys and made them sleep on the couches. We had plenty of couches for people to sleep on any we honestly never had an incident where someone left the house and got into a drunk driving accident. We also cut people off when we saw they were getting to be too intoxicated by having some members stay sober on that night. Sounds terribly hard, doesn't it? Somehow a bunch of drunken frat kids can seem to keep it together, so I don't see what the big fuss is about.
Furthermore, the original negligent act is causally responsible for the injury to the plaintiff in two legal senses; in "but-for" causation, and proximate cause.
"But-for" causation is merely saying that, but for the defendant's negligence, the injury to the plaintiff would not have happened. Can we say this here? Certainly. But for the defendant serving the driver alcohol, the wreck would not have occured. This is called being the direct cause.
Additionally, the original negligent act is also the proximate or legal cause of the injury because it is foreseeable that a visibly drunk driver, whom you've been feeding alcohol to, will go out and have a wreck if they drive.
So what's the problem then if there's all this legal causation? There's no duty imposed, which is what social host liability is all about. The law is reluctant to impose a duty here because, as I mentioned earlier, it is argued that it's too great a burden on society.
Since when is it too great a burden on society to act proactively to prevent either their friends or potential victims from being hurt? We have Hollywood actors turn out to PETA protests but I havn't heard of anyone camping out in a tree to persuade legislators or judges to begin imposing a duty on social hosts. I guess our party is too important, our decadence is too valuable. Trade my fun for a life? "Never" is the answer of our society.
I remember the words of Cain when I remember the "social hosts" in this case, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Europe is Dead
Muslim Occupation of a Roman Catholic Church
Would Christ bless this type of charity?
Surely, inviting the poor to your table for a meal, or advocating for the helpless in order to show the grace of God to others is an outward work of a Christian. But what kind of charity is this? A charity where those who profane the Triune God, who trample the deity of the Son underfoot, are welcomed into a place that is espoused to be a house of the LORD and allowed to blasphemy there with the blessing of one who calls himself a minister of GOD.
All of this is done in the name of tolerance, and it's indicative of a cultural shift at large. A Christian must tolerate a Muslim's blasphemy of Elohim, but a Muslim is not required to tolerate a Christian's worship of Christ. The Christian must silence him or herself. Likewise, an atheist can peddle his religion in the classroom, and force the public school system to endorse the atheist religious dogma of macro-evolution but if a Christian wants to say "One nation, under God..." that's not allowed. No "religion" in the classroom. Words mean nothing, and definitions are changed at a whim. Those who hold themselves to more rigid standards of reason and logic are punished and mocked.
We tolerate everything except intolerance. It's really a fitting maxim for this age; contradictory and illogical on its face.
Complete tolerance is not possible, because relativism and subjectivism are impossible. This is a world of absolutes, and absolute truth exists. Gravity is an absolute truth. You cannot escape it as long as physical laws are operating in the way they currently do. For gravity to cease to be true, other operations would have to cease to exist or function as they do now. It is inescapable.
Intolerance is unavoidable, but what does this word mean? The world would have it mean hatred for others; they want it to conjure images of violence and torture. In this way, they can escape being intolerant while painting the Christian to be the bad guy.
It is the world that is the oppressive one. Intolerance is not something necessarily bred of violence or hatred, at least not of other people. I hate sin, because my Father hates sin. I do not hate the sinner; I am not allowed to. I am not the judge, nor can I pass judgment on someone of this world, i.e. a sinner, for being a sinner. I can be intolerant of their sin though. How? Respectful disagreement, witnessing to them the forgiveness wrought from Christ's Sacrifice and Ressurection, being honest with them about the absolute beliefs that I believe. If I did otherwise, then I would show my hatred for them. What man would watch a blind man walk off a cliff? That is true hatred. I submit that intolerance is love for your nieghbor.
Back to the original question; would Christ bless this type of charity? I submit a stern no.
Would Christ bless this type of charity?
Surely, inviting the poor to your table for a meal, or advocating for the helpless in order to show the grace of God to others is an outward work of a Christian. But what kind of charity is this? A charity where those who profane the Triune God, who trample the deity of the Son underfoot, are welcomed into a place that is espoused to be a house of the LORD and allowed to blasphemy there with the blessing of one who calls himself a minister of GOD.
All of this is done in the name of tolerance, and it's indicative of a cultural shift at large. A Christian must tolerate a Muslim's blasphemy of Elohim, but a Muslim is not required to tolerate a Christian's worship of Christ. The Christian must silence him or herself. Likewise, an atheist can peddle his religion in the classroom, and force the public school system to endorse the atheist religious dogma of macro-evolution but if a Christian wants to say "One nation, under God..." that's not allowed. No "religion" in the classroom. Words mean nothing, and definitions are changed at a whim. Those who hold themselves to more rigid standards of reason and logic are punished and mocked.
We tolerate everything except intolerance. It's really a fitting maxim for this age; contradictory and illogical on its face.
Complete tolerance is not possible, because relativism and subjectivism are impossible. This is a world of absolutes, and absolute truth exists. Gravity is an absolute truth. You cannot escape it as long as physical laws are operating in the way they currently do. For gravity to cease to be true, other operations would have to cease to exist or function as they do now. It is inescapable.
Intolerance is unavoidable, but what does this word mean? The world would have it mean hatred for others; they want it to conjure images of violence and torture. In this way, they can escape being intolerant while painting the Christian to be the bad guy.
It is the world that is the oppressive one. Intolerance is not something necessarily bred of violence or hatred, at least not of other people. I hate sin, because my Father hates sin. I do not hate the sinner; I am not allowed to. I am not the judge, nor can I pass judgment on someone of this world, i.e. a sinner, for being a sinner. I can be intolerant of their sin though. How? Respectful disagreement, witnessing to them the forgiveness wrought from Christ's Sacrifice and Ressurection, being honest with them about the absolute beliefs that I believe. If I did otherwise, then I would show my hatred for them. What man would watch a blind man walk off a cliff? That is true hatred. I submit that intolerance is love for your nieghbor.
Back to the original question; would Christ bless this type of charity? I submit a stern no.
He said to them,-John 8:23-24"You are from below; I am from above. You are of this world; I am not of this world. I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."
This day in 1568...
"1568: Roman Catholic Church sentences entire population of Netherlands to death for heresy"
I wonder how that worked out for them.
taken from: http://chronita.com/
I wonder how that worked out for them.
taken from: http://chronita.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
