This is my second post on this topic
(http://mmebrady.blogspot.com/2007/12/on-law-religion-and-morality.html)
I was prompted to post again by a Time Magazine article I stumbled upon:
http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1685055_1685076_1686619,00.html
"Morality may be a hard concept to grasp, but we acquire it fast. A preschooler will learn that it's not all right to eat in the classroom, because the teacher says it's not. If the rule is lifted and eating is approved, the child will happily comply. But if the same teacher says it's also O.K. to push another student off a chair, the child hesitates. "He'll respond, 'No, the teacher shouldn't say that,'" says psychologist Michael Schulman, co-author of Bringing Up a Moral Child. In both cases, somebody taught the child a rule, but the rule against pushing has a stickiness about it, one that resists coming unstuck even if someone in authority countenances it. That's the difference between a matter of morality and one of mere social convention, and Schulman and others believe kids feel it innately."
So with the teacher making a rule staing it is OK to push another student off a chair we have an example of "law" in conflict with morality -- a situation in which the Bible would have us put the law of God before the "law" of man.
Then there is the issue of morality being an innate concept. In my previous post I asked "So from where else does one derive one's sense of right and wrong?" Psychologists interviewed for this article believe humans may have a moral code programmed from birth. I have long been interested in the nature v. nurture question, and find that idea fascinating -- not to mention the potential implications. If indeed there is a HUMAN moral code -- separate from religion, separate from law, separate from politics, what would this mean for issues like homosexuality? abortion?
Of course there is a distinction between this innate morality and behavior, or we would already live in a perfect world. Psychologist Marc Hauser discusses this in more detail:
http://www.americanscientist.org/template/InterviewTypeDetail/assetid/52880
I will add this book to my reading list!
Back to the Time article: "But you don't need a state to create a moral code. The group does it too." -- I would argue that groups can collectively agree to abandon a prescribed moral code as well -- so-called "mob mentality" The example that comes to mind for me is a boating accident that happened locally, where someone was killed by a boater who was intoxicated, and in the fracas, the "group" decided to leave the scene of the accident. Here are the bare bones details:
http://www.9wsyr.com/mostpopular/story.aspx?content_id=44cf79e4-3494-4d1f-bc47-4cf5b81fc91d
Bottom line here, as Hauser puts forth, behavior will frequently exceed the boundaries of morality -- innate or otherwise.
Fascinating stuff...I welcome comments (as always, but particularly on this topic). I am sure this will not be my last posting on this topic....
Monday, January 7, 2008
Revisiting Morality
Personal Safety in the Blogosphere
Well, I had originally planned to post on last night's debate on Fox, but after I watched the analysis and checked this morning's news, most people seem to think Romney came out ahead, and that just leaves me speechless. Then again, after his insistence that he NEVER called McCain's policy amnesty (plainly not true) Saturday night, and his bold-faced lie about having supported Bush tax cuts from the beginning (he said he wouldn't publicly endorse something he didn't support) I guess I sort of tuned him out in disgust.
So here's the deal -- I'm rather new to the blogosphere. Sure, I've read blogs for a long time, but not with any regularity, and not as a participant. Now that I've begun my own blog and made my rounds posting comments where comments seem necessary, I have discovered that certain sites are like great black holes of negativity -- Digg.com for example. Yes, I have it listed as a link here, and yes I continue to visit and participate daily in one thread or another, but mostly because it truly amuses me to be "Dugg down" by people not bold enough to comment with a difference of opinion, or to be attacked and called names by people who don't like what I have to say. Now, I am definitely opinionated, but I like to think that I am a reasonable and thoughtful person who leaves room in my view of the universe for differing opinions when they are presented rationally and based on fact. this site seems to be sorely lacking in both rationality and fact.
There are others like me -- even on Digg. The question I have is why attack? If you truly believe -- especially if you believe passionately -- in your opinion, why not argue it rationally? I have even been known to CHANGE my opinion in the face of rational argument and facts I perhaps had not known before. But being attacked or called names only makes me feel more right -- I think that's probably human nature.
And it makes me want to keep putting my opinions out there even more. So bring on the healthy debate, and those who choose to attack, you aren't accomplishing much, except to make yourselves look foolish.
Sunday, January 6, 2008
It's Nasty Time!
After watching parts of the Republican debate and most of the Democratic debate on ABC last night, it was clear that the gloves are off. The Nasty Meter got quite a workout last night! The candidates primarily on the receiving end were Romney and Clinton.
As for Mitt Romney, I don't know whose idea it was to seat him between John McCain and Mike Huckabee, but he had to have been uncomfortable at the outset, and it surely didn't get any better as the debate continued. It was definitely not Romney's best showing -- arguing over semantics rather than actual issues, and arguing them dishonestly at that. Tonight's forum on Fox News should be very interesting. It may be Romney's last hope.
On the other hand, Huckabee did not make a strong showing either, compared to McCain, Giuliani, and perhaps even Thompson, who is not even campaigning in New Hampshire. Despite the poor showing in Iowa and the fact that he is also not predicted to do well in NH, I believe this debate further cements Giuliani's position as the Republican front-runner.
And Edwards and Obama formed an impromptu but logical alliance against Hillary Clinton, who, similar to Romney, did not handle the attacks particularly gracefully. This will hurt her as well. I truly believe she needs to be afraid of Obama. Edwards remains a non-entity, but Obama, for all his lack of experience, has managed to inspire the youth of America, and if he continues to gain momentum as he did in Iowa and last nights debate, the "Clinton Machine" may fall too far behind to ever catch him.
Time will tell, and I am anxiously awaiting tonight's debate!
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Huckawho?
This presidential election is one I have been following quite closely for months now. I have listened to pundits, watched debates, read blogs, in an attempt to choose a candidate from a pool that still seems to me to be rather shallow. I am a registered independent who is very likely to vote Republican. All along, the only candidate who has truly captured my interest thus far is Rudy Giuliani, because my greatest concern is national security. The Democrats seem to be seriously out of touch with this issue. Ron Paul seems to be siding with the Dems on this issue. Fred Thompson.....is great on Law and Order, but his heart doesn't seem to be in this campaign, and a President without heart is the last thing we need. Romney is too polished. I just can't bring myself to take him much more seriously than I would one of my daughters' Ken dolls. McCain, I used to really like -- even back when I was a registered Liberal -- but I don't like his position on immigration (which I see as directly linked to national security), I question his stand on waterboarding (something I think Romney addressed the best by refusing to answer in order to withhold information from our enemies), and he has just seemed too tired over the last year to handle the job. Then there's Mike Huckabee.
When I first saw Huckabee in a Republican debate, I didn't know much about him, but I immediately liked him. He seemed real. He seemed like Everyman. He seemed to have the pulse of America, and did not strike me as a traditional politician. Of late, his waffling had made me wonder if he is just not accustomed to the national stage, or is he more of a player than I originally thought. The ongoing conflict with Romney raised further questions. Then I saw Huckabee's campaign chair interviewed on Fox News. I found Ed Rollins to be an extraordinarily abrasive and unpleasant man -- the opposite of who I thought Mike Huckabee was. But Huckabee chose him as his top man. He must know who he has working for him. could I have Mike Huckabee completely wrong?. With his victory in Iowa, I decided to do some more focused research on Mr. Huckabee for myself, since the opinions of the pundits on who this man is and what his chances really are going forward are varied. Here's some of what I found:
Huckabee may be the "Republican Clinton" this New York Times article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/22/us/politics/22huckabee.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
had a couple of very interesting quotes from people who knew him as Governor of Arkansas.
“He would go out and stump and do his shtick and tell his jokes and charm you,” said State Senator Jimmy Jeffress, a Democrat and critic of the former governor. “He has the gift of gab. He’s the only person I know, other than Bill Clinton, who can pick up a rock and give you a 10-minute talk on it.”
“Huckabee didn’t build bridges,” said State Senator Jim Argue Jr., a Democrat and leader in the schools overhaul effort. “If you didn’t agree with him, he attacked you.”
Granted, those quoted are both Democrats, but I find the direct comparison to Bill Clinton to be intriguing, and quite apt. It clearly illustrates what I first liked about Huckabee, but does not necessarily translate to sincerity. The second quote sounds to me frighteningly familiar to what Hillary's detractors say about her -- beware the wolf in sheep's clothing!
There are his liberal spending habits -- including a desire to provide government services to illegals -- documented from a decade as governor of Arkansas -- maybe less Republican than Clinton in the spending arena.
And there is his belief in redemption which has shown itself in clemencies granted, sometimes to violent felons. This stumbling block is of particular interest to me for how it may impact his dealings with terrorist entities.
As much as Mike Huckabee puts forth a likeable "nice-guy" image, is that enough? I don't think it is. I think he would be a dangerous choice for president, and at this point, my vote is still for Giuliani.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Being Christian in 2008
I was inspired to write this post by a hateful comment I read on Digg.com:
"Huckabee is proof that the nutball Christians (which means all of them including the ones who lie to you and say they aren't) are at it again."
Now, I am not necessarily a Huckabee fan, but I am a Christian. I also do not consider myself to be a "nutball". I am a relative newcomer to reading blogs on Digg. One of my first comments was apparently given a "thumbs-down". Digg seems to be a rather liberal-leaning community populated by quite a number of intolerant people. I find this to be extremely ironic. Outwardly, the mark of liberalism would seem to be excessive tolerance -- anything goes. We are seemingly expected by the liberal community to suspend any moral judgment on any issue. And yet, here I find a comment such as this (and it is not an isolated comment). If the word "homosexuals" or "Muslims" had been substitued for "Christians", I believe there would have been never-ending cries of outrage (I'm sure my response to that comment will get it's share of outrage in any case). When did Christians become the group it is OK to disparage and discriminate against?
I find this attitude very dangerous -- and not just because I am Christian. I do not believe these individuals are violent -- à la the Skinheads -- however, as important as the SS was in actively rounding up, torturing, and killing the Jews in Nazi Germany, none of that would have been able to take place without the common attitude toward Jews that is hauntingly similar to what I read in that and other comments on Digg.
Let me be clear: I am not condemning Digg, I am not condemning liberals. What I condemn, is the vicious lashing out at those who believe differently. That is decidedly unAmerican.
So dugg2hard, whoever you are, try to keep an open mind, and show some tolerance for those who may not share your opinions and beliefs. We are Americans too, and more importantly just as human as you.
Thursday, January 3, 2008
How to Vote in Primary/Caucus Season
So here's my question: How should we be looking at our vote and its significance in Primary/Caucus season? The easy answer, is to vote for the candidate who best fits the needs of the nation from our point of view (see my New Years Resolutions post)
But I saw another angle as I was watching Hannity & Colmes on Fox News last night. Frank Luntz (who I love to watch!! His dials and focus groups fascinate me to no end!) was talking to Democrats about their voting choices, and many of them seemed very willing to NOT vote for the candidate they thought would be the best president, instead focusing on "electability" -- which candidate is best equipped to beat the Republican nominee -- whoever that should be.
At this point, my boyfriend who was watching with me began sounding off about that not being a valid way to choose a candidate -- "electability" that is. And then the question began to knock around my brain....and I don't have an answer. (As many opinions as I have, that seems to be becoming a theme on this blog -- my lack of answers...)
I am a registered Independent, so I would not be voting in a Caucus or Primary in any case, but if I were, how would I approach it? In my particular case, since at this point, I would probably be voting for Giuliani based on both electability and who I believe to be the best candidate (at least among those actually running). So this is really a moot point for me personally, but it intrigues me nonetheless.
So in the event that this blog actually gains some sort of readership ( I am still hopeful), I think I shall put this to a poll.
What do you think?
Wednesday, January 2, 2008
Our Rights v. the Rights of our Children
A new law took effect in California yesterday, making it illegal to smoke tobacco in a car where a minor is present.
http://www.topix.com/us/2008/01/california-smoke-free-cars-with-minors-law-goes-into-effect#lastPost
Now as far as what goes on in California, my opinions are usually 100% contrary, but this is one of the few things that I support. Some will surely say (as I have read in comments on other blogs) that this law is "fascist" that the government is taking away "our rights", but what about the rights of our children? We have laws requiring us to educate our children. We have laws against abusing our children both emotionally and physically. How is it not abusive ot expose your child to secondhand smoke in an enclosed space? Study after study shows that secondhand smoke can have dire consequences for those who breathe it.
Check out this fact sheet from the American Lung Association:
http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=39857
Is the right to subject our children to something clearly hazardous to their health a right worth fighting for? I think not.
There are those who will say that this law is merely another step on the way to outlawing tobacco outright. I don't think this law is about outlawing tobacco, but about protecting children. It is true that with this and other recent legislation it has become more and more difficult for a smoker to indulge at work or in public locations, but from my perspective this legislation is more about protecting the rights of nonsmokers than taking away smokers' rights.
It is true that I am not a smoker, which perhaps makes it difficult for a smoker to take my opinions seriously, but as a nonsmoker I have the right to breathe clean air just as much as a smoker has the right to pollute his or her lungs. Should there be certain public places where smokers can smoke and nonsmokers can choose to avoid? Absolutely. But children don't have the choice to get out of a car where someone is smoking. Children are at the mercy of the adults responsible for them at any given time. So their rights need to be protected, and when adults lack the common sense to keep their children safe, sometimes legislation is necessary.
