Secession is the last non-violent option on the table. If we grant a ‘right to assembly’ we should similarly grant a ‘right to secede.’ Splintered regions certainly have some disadvantages, but it is far better that the people in those regions weigh the advantages and disadvantages for themselves and voluntarily choose whether or not they will bear the cost and risk of remaining separate from some other region. In my opinion, no union merely for the sake of having a union is worth the killing of thousands of people in order to preserve that union. Great Britain seems to have gotten that part right, and that is to its credit. Perhaps a day is coming, and sooner than we think, when we may have to draw a lesson from Scotland.
Category: Secular Humanism
In the first part I sought to tease out the basis for Dawkins’ claim that what he said “follows logically from the ordinary pro-choice stance.” It is to the reader to decide if my analysis is correct, and if not, what the real basis is. It is important, however, to understand that Dawkins is not …
No one wants to be told that they cannot play with their toy. No one wants to be told that their toy might even be dangerous in certain contexts–like the child that wishes to play baseball in the living room does not like being told to take the baseball bat and ball into the field, where that toy is more appropriate–or, that they shouldn’t bash people in the head with the baseball bat.
3. A lot of disbelievers have a problem with a loving God sending people to an eternity of torture by way of fire. What is your take on hell? I also had a problem with that. C.S. Lewis’s “The Great Divorce” provided the imaginative framework I needed to get over the ‘hump’ on this issue. …
Have you heard about this case where a man has been filing petition after petition demanding the right to marry his computer? The article cites other precedents, such as people being able to marry dolphins and cardboard cutouts of themselves. On this blog, I gave the example of the person who married a pillow–although I …
Today’s headline on the Drudge Report did not surprise me in the slightest: ABORTED BABIES INCINERATED TO HEAT HOSPITALS The article linked to is this one in the Telegraph: Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals: The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used …
I have noticed an increase in massive marches and demonstrations in the United States over the last ten years. Some see this as a healthy by-product of democracy. I think it is the opposite. I think it is an indicator that democracy is in some stage of collapse. Certainly, any legitimate democracy should grant a free right to assemble, but that the people feel they have to assemble in the first place in order for anything to get done means that there is the stench of something very rotten in Denmark. It isn’t easy to put one’s finger on what it is–but that’s precisely part of the problem. If you want to get a feel for how the Republic is really doing these days, don’t look to that meaningless ‘State of the Union’ speech given by the president each year. Look to the streets and see how many, and how often, the people are coursing through them.
Was reading Alec Baldwin’s “goodbye” this morning and saw this comment: As progressive as I’ve been in my politics, there are other things I don’t think of as liberal or progressive, just common sense. This statement concisely summarizes why progressivism, and progressives, are dangerous. They do not view a large number of their viewpoints, up …
An interesting thing has happened, so rare it might even be deemed a singularity on par with the Big Bang: There will be a debate between a young earth creationist* and an avowed evolutionist. The debate, to be held on Feb. 4th, 2013, is between Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis and Bill Nye… the Science Guy. I attempted to get tickets; they were sold out within just a few minutes. This is indicative of the kind of interest there is in such an event. It is no doubt good publicity for the Creation Museum, but sitting here as a young earth creationist myself, I wish to lodge my (obviously belated) advice to Mr. Ham: cancel the debate.
Limbaugh and others are correct in detecting the eugenics thinking behind this comment but do not go far enough in their explanation. The problem is that a moment’s thought, especially amongst those with only a passing knowledge of the phrase ‘eugenics’, would recall that early 20th century eugenics had essentially embraced Darwin’s formula, “Survival of the fittest.” Given that evolution, as expressed in this maxim, was a raw scientific fact, early eugenicists saw the genetically inferior as a burden on society that needed to be eliminated. So how was Gruber being like a eugenicist if he was targeting the genetically fit?