Re: 25 Classic Books That Have Been Banned

On 5/30/25 20:52, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 31/05/2025 04:07, Peter Fairbrother wrote:

On 31/05/2025 02:43, Richard Heathfield wrote:

On 31/05/2025 02:06, Peter Fairbrother wrote:

On 30/05/2025 17:05, Paul S Person wrote:
>

"Freedom from religion" is a dogma of one or another of the religions
that deny their own nature.

>
I don't really understand that, but I think it's freedom _of_ religion, in the Constitution.  However, at least to some extent, one implies the other.
>
Take the Supreme Court decision on abortion as an example. Perhaps those judges with strong religious views in the subject should have recused themselves.

>
That's a door we probably didn't want opened, but maybe if we tread lightly...?
>

>
The rest of us * now have to comply with their religion. Is that not forced participation?

>
Is it your contention that all atheists are in favour of abortion?

>
Goodness no, not at all.

 You see the point, of course. If an atheist can decide for non-religious reasons that abortion is immoral, so can a religious person.
 If you were to appoint me to the US Supreme Court (which would be a supremely bad idea for all kinds of reasons), I would cast my vote against the taking of life, not because I'm a Christian (although I am) but because I'm an Englishman, and we English root for the underdog.
 On one side a tiny unborn child trying to mind her own business as she prepares to make her way in the world, and on the other side not only a hostile mother but an entire hospital full of scary kit employed by giant doctors to hunt her down and fling her into the trash bin. No fair! If you don't want a child, don't start one. And if Christianity mandated abortion, I would oppose it on this very ground.

You use the buzzword "unborn child" but children are born with the
possibility of becoming a person if no anti-person factors inervene. We
see in Gaza today that many fairly well advanced on that path to personhood
are dying of anti-person factors, such as being killed outright by various
agencies and simply starving to death. I don't believe born children should
be euthanized but unborn possible children?  I think that until the nervous
system by which the child may gain consciousness is developed that
personhood is doubtful.
That fetus has no protection from the mistakes and wishes of the
parents unless they want a child.  Children are started by love and that
is great but sometime birth control fails, rape and insest happen and
usually to women, little more than children barely past puberty and
still subject to the vagaries of youth.

 

As an aside, I don't consider myself an atheist, more an agnostic - I don't believe in any of the  established religions, afaict they are mostly about controlling people rather than a search for truth.

 I think that's true, but I also think that a lot of truth has been found along the way. Religions have turned up a lot of nonsense over the millennia, but plenty of diamonds, too.
 

>
When I was younger I thought even being an agnostic rather than an atheist was crapping out

 My brother tells me that he's really an atheist, but he describes himself as an agnostic because he doesn't want to hurt God's feelings.
 

- but as I get older I wonder, why is there something - cogito ergo sum - rather than nothing?

 We're all getting closer to finding out.
 

As a physicist (I am not mainly a physicist, but) I can see that the universe could arise from nothing - but then why should physics, or mathematics, or philosophy, be that way?
>
Or is it just turtles all the way down?  :)

 Or do those same turtles swim in an endless cloud of unknowing?

The  turtles have worked out their ways of life via evolution years before
human persons existed. They know what they know and how to survive and
to seduce receptive females for reproduction.

 

Anywhoo, as to abortion. In the 60's it became a practical method of birth control, though it had been possible earlier.

Abortion was illegal though widely practiced resulting in problems
for physicians, nuress and unqualified people who undertook to abort
someone.  Women died or were sterilized by infection frequently and
skillful and descrete abortionists made fortunes. So it was a dangerous
procedure when illegal. Children of the elite coud go abroad to Switzerland
or Cuba before Castro but the rest of American womanhood was stuck
in unhygienic temporary places in back allies where oversights by the
abortionists frequently were found sick and dying.
There were reasons why the law was changed.
When the law was changed and safe abortions were available curiously
it turns out that carrying a child to birth is more deadly than abortion to the
mother.

>
An ex-girlfriend had an abortion - not mine - and she still thinks about it from time to time, 50 years later. At the time it was probably the right decision for her. People die, people kill each other - but is a fetus a people? I don't know.

 I would reason that we really ought to find out before we start killing them.
 

What I do know is that many or most women want the freedom to have an abortion, whether it is the right decision or not. And while the freedoms in the Constitution do not specifically mention that, the fact that there are supposed to be those sorts of freedoms is .. important.

 Quoth the Constitution:
 "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand
Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
 "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

When did you last summon a fetus to court?
What was the defense against its parasitism on the possible mother?

 Due process of law includes the right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. The Constitution does not allow states to deny people the protection of the law by letting them be killed without first being convicted of a capital crime.
 

So if a Supreme Court Judge, while smoking a cigar and drinking brandy at a dinner afterwards (it happened), says he decided against that freedom on the basis of his religious belief that a fetus is a people, I can't agree with that.

 Agreed.
 

If he believes that for other reasons, ok, But for religious reasons, no. That is forcing his religious beliefs on everyone else.

 Also agreed. But do we outlaw killing, say, a 6-year-old for religious reasons, or because to legalize it would make us evil bastards? After we've answered that, we can talk about where to draw the evil bastard line.
 

We are killing many 6 year olds with the termination of the USAIDS program.
They are starving. We killed more who were sick by withdrawing their medications
without notice.
Of course Elon Musk running his DOGE was immediatedly responsible but he
ignores those deaths to offer his reproductive services to whoever will
consider bearing his children.  Well that is the religious view that we should
all have as many children as we can and that they should all conform to
our standard of behavior.
Are we evil people or not?  I think some evil has been allowed
into positions of power and futher evil has entered via that evil.
Bastards? I am not as my parents were married in advance
of my conception but may be still as evil as I need to be.
bliss