Home » abortion, Blog, eugenics, General, Global Warming, Obama, politics, science, scientism, Secular Humanism » Jaffe Memo: Part 7, Religion, Politics, Scientism, Climate Change, and Secular Humanism

Jaffe Memo: Part 7, Religion, Politics, Scientism, Climate Change, and Secular Humanism

This series began as a reflection of the contents of the Jaffe Memo, a Planned Parenthood document from 1969 that discussed ideas for handling the ‘population’ crisis.  This memo succinctly lays bear an agenda that has been in play since before the Civil War, and as I have demonstrated in previous parts of this series (and elsewhere), is still very much with us today.  The problem, as I have argued, is that many issues that are in front of us today for consideration were actually put forward by the liberal progressives at the turn of the century, who hoped at the time that measures such as a minimum wage, compulsory sterlization, etc, could reduce the number of ‘undesirables’ in society.  They usually meant:  black people.

It has been the point of this series to argue that ‘religion’ and ‘politics’ must mix.  That is, our values must inform our politics.   This would go without saying- after all, if our values aren’t informing our politics, what is informing our politics?  However, there is a prevailing notion that religious people are not allowed to have their values inform their politics, because that would be ‘forcing your religious views’ on another.  Christians themselves have accepted this premise.   The point of this series has been to show that this is an extremely dangerous premise to accept, as the Jaffe memo illustrates;  if those measures were to be enacted, America would be under a tyranny that goes beyond the horrors of the Nazis and beyond the oppression seen in 20th century communism.   Apparently, though, such notions are allowed public expression because they are ‘secular.’  If you were to object to them, allegedly you need a ‘secular’ argument against them.  You would not be allowed to oppose them because the policies are, well, evil.

At any rate, as I have shown and will continue to show in this series, secularists are informed by values just as ‘religious’ as those they wish to exclude from the public sphere.  Unless this be understood- by Christians in particular- we risk being dupes, helping to usher in laws and policies that further an agenda that we would never support, if only we knew what that agenda really was.  This idea that secularism is ‘neutral’ is ridiculously absurd, and the idea that politics is value neutral equally so.

To carry on the defense of these assertions, let me call to the reader’s attention my conclusion to the last part, which invoked ‘climate change.’  Please keep that in mind while I take what may seem to be a detour.

Let me re-ask this question:  “If we are not to allow our ‘religious’ values to inform our actions, and must always have ‘secular’ reasonings, what is left to motivate us?”

There aren’t very many options.   One example that I think you could say is not ‘religious’ in nature would be whatever gives us pleasure.  Why help the poor?  Because it makes us feel happy!  If we say, “Because it is right to help the less fortunate” this is making a moral judgement, and morality is the domain of religion, and we’re trying to exclude religion, as you recall.  Another option would be to invoke brute instinct.  No one would find this a particularly satisfying reason (“I object to the death penalty for no reason at all- its an instinctive reaction”) and I cannot say that I have ever heard anyone invoke it.  (I have, however, heard a liberal say that the reason why they do ‘good’ things is merely because it gives them happiness.)   The truth, of course, is that everyone pushing agendas in the public sphere believes they have a moral justification for doing so, and they clothe their actions in moral language (ala Saul Alinsky).   But if we’ve eliminated religion from the public sphere, where can this moral justification come from?

By far, the most common rationale offered is to say that it is scientifically demonstrated, justified, or proved, or whatever.  But is this really ‘value neutral’?  Since the ‘evidence’ being invoked is in the public domain, given to us by extremely smart people who have no agendas of their own, with impeccable scientific credentials- who cannot be challenged- surely here we have something that is as ‘secular’ and a-religious as one can get, right?

To show that this is not the case, let me use the example of embryonic stem cell research and Barack Obama.  When he reversed the  Bush era ban on creating new lines of stem cells for Federally sponsored researched, Obama said:

“Promoting science isn’t just about providing resources, it is also about protecting free and open inquiry,” Obama said. “It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

I certainly don’t mind objecting to the distorting or concealing scientific data to serve agendas.   If only the ‘climate change’ crowd agreed!  I’m a little nervous about the idea of ‘promoting science’ as ‘protecting free and open inquiry.’  Obama’s statement here flatly contradicts what he says later in the article about human cloning, which he says has ‘no place in our society.’  But isn’t that standing in the way of free and open inquiry?   And why stop there?   Imagine what we could learn if we restarted Nazi era research using live humans?  They learned quite a bit.  What could we learn today with modern advancements?   Hmmmm…. what explains Obama’s refusal to allow human cloning after embracing embryonic stem cell research?  It’s almost as if there is a MORAL objection somewhere… Hold that thought.

Of further interest is the statement, “we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”  ‘Ideology’ here no doubt would include religion and such.  If you’re like me, you are curious about what constitutes a ‘scientific decision.’  Science refers to a methodology, a manner in which carries out an examination.    The best case reading of this would suggest that a ‘scientific decision’ refers to decisions regarding what should be studied, or perhaps what kind of glass you want to make your test tubes out of.  The worst case reading is that there is no such thing as a ‘scientific decision’ that is not driven- or limited- by an ‘ideology.’

If one sits down to scientifically address the effectiveness of the flu vaccine, one only does so because one is driven by an ideological perspective:  one is interested in its effectiveness only because if it is or isn’t, human lives will be improved or not improved, and we prefer that they be improved.  The whole goal of the ‘scientific decision’ to investigate the vaccine’s effectiveness is to further the ideological objective of helping people, which, we are to imagine, is a GOOD thing.  But ‘goodness’ brings us back to morality!  But if we really wanted to help people, there is no question that doing experiments on living humans would give us a great deal of useful information.   Many people don’t know just how good the information is that was given to us by the Nazis engaged in vivisection!  But decent people (and ‘decent’ brings us back to morality!) could never go along with that, even if it did give us loads of useful information, because it would be WRONG.  And we’re back to morality and ideology.    Using embryonic stem cells for research IS a ‘scientific’ decision that is driven by ideology, and NOT pursuing human cloning is also driven by ideology!

It is difficult to imagine any kind of ‘scientific’ inquiry that is not driven by someone’s values, ethics, or world view.  After all, no one carries out scientific research by instinct.   We may put forward some kind of experiment regarding pure physics, such as an experiment measuring the acceleration of an object… say, a bullet, and if we determine that the answer is 2,500 feet per second, how do we ask that result to make a decision for us?  “Dear Mr. 2,500 feet per second, do you think we should fire you off into someone’s skull?”  Of course not.  Whether or not we go around shooting people in the head is a moral calculation, not a scientific one.  Scientists gave us the atomic bomb, but it was not the ‘facts’ of the bomb that drove their concerns about its use;  those concerns emerged from their moral outlook, that is, their religious perspectives.

Likewise, the fact that we can do tests on embryonic stem cells does not tell us anything about whether or not we should do tests on embryonic stem cells.   It is not a ‘scientific’ decision at all.  ‘Science’ is just the bludgeon used against those with a different perspective, telling them to keep their ‘religion’ to themselves, whilst all the while acting on their own ‘religious’ perspectives.  [More on this tactic]

I am not here delving into the different moral perspectives that would lead someone to believe we should or should not engage in such research.  You may very well think we should, but you will likely frame it in terms like “we’re doing it because of the cures it offers and the people it will help,” just as Obama did.  In short, you will offer a moral justification.  Now, why should your moral outlook be allowed in the debate, but not mine?  Why did Obama feel compelled to label objections to embryonic stem cell research as ‘ideological’ in nature and the decision to engage in the research as ‘scientific’?

I bite my tongue;  the long and short of it is that he is most likely your standard liberal atheistic secular humanist progressive.   We can’t really control how those people think or behave, but once we come to grips with the fact that they have a world view and that they, like everyone else, tries to implement it in public society, we will be compelled to view their proposals with heightened scrutiny.  We don’t want to be their ‘splendid dupes.’  We must be ready to act on our world view, even if they would like to relegate us to second-class citizens  while they implement their own.  But what exactly is their worldview?  What are they trying to accomplish?  How can we tell when a proposal reflects a subversive agenda and distinguish from the thoughtless ‘feel-good’ initiatives that liberalism often promotes, regardless of whether or not the initiatives actually help, rather than hurt?

In my studies of the ‘culture of death’ I believe I can identify several common and enduring characteristics.  For example, since deference to God is not allowed in the public square, the question of who and what is human is reduced to the opinion of the secularists;  that is, humans themselves decide what humanity consists of and who has value and who does not.   In the 1850s, they believed that black people were evolutionarily inferior, and so could be treated as such.  The Nazis felt the same way about the Jews.  The liberals do not believe a human is a human until it exits the birth canal (with some exceptions- Peter Singer thinks the matter in doubt even until the child reaches two years of age), and behave accordingly.  Obama, as already indicated, believes human embryos are not human persons, and likewise behaves accordingly.  Every single one of these groups felt that they had ‘Science’ on their side and that ‘religion’ has no bearing on the question.

To put it bluntly, liberalism-turned-malignant always engages in population control, because they believe that they, and they alone- since THEY rely on science, and not ideology- are the final arbiters on how the species is to be managed.  Since they believe that religion has no place in public policy, do not believe they themselves are religious, they naturally believe that whatever they do is acceptable and valid, and believe religionists should just shut up and go away.

There is no modern example of this malignancy at work than the issue of ‘climate change.’

I will discuss this in more detail in the next part, but note now the similarities in method and behavior.  First of all, we have the notion that it is ‘scientifically proved’ that the earth is warming and that it is the fault of humans.  For the purposes of what follows, let us grant these as actual empirical facts.  Now, how do we get from these facts to “We must reduce the earth’s population”?  The former may be facts, but the latter is not a ‘scientific decision’ but a value judgement.  In typical liberal fashion, the value judgement is cloaked as ‘science.’  And we shouldn’t let our ‘ideology’ stand in the way of science, right?

Should Christians engage in population control?  We may quibble over whether or not the minimum wage (which was originally designed to reduce the number of black people, believe it or not [see previous parts]) can be supported on its own merits, despite the fact that it was promoted by black-hearted progressives of the early 1900s, and imagine that it is possible to separate that fact out in our modern consideration.  But what about a ‘one-child’ policy, such as the one that China has, and VP Biden recently refused to ‘second guess’?   Can a Christian in good conscience accept the premise that we must ‘mind the herd’ that undergirds many liberal programs?

Could it be possible that in jumping onto the ‘Save the earth’ bandwagon, we are not being ‘good stewards’ of the earth at all, but rather useful idiots, helping to empowering power-hungry population control freaks and furthering their objectives?

The question is complicated by the fact that the people implementing these agendas are dishonest, and lie endlessly about their real purposes and objectives.  But you can still sometimes catch them revealing their real intent.  Frankly, though, it may not be important to know with certainty whether or not a secret agenda is in play.   It may be more important to simply look at the net effects.  If, for example, the minimum wage does harm black people, and you think that is bad, then you must chalk it up as, at best, a feel good measure that does not actually help people in the real world.  At worst, you must consider it a real possibility that you are complicit in a ‘racial purification’ effort.  If in pursuit of being kind to the environment (would that be a moral or amoral goal?) you suddenly discover you will be required to enact a global ‘one child’ policy, you should immediately suspect that there is more involved than concern for the environment.

It would be a shame if, unwilling to ‘force our religious values on others,’ we delivered the world into the hands of tyrants.

Share

6 Responses to Jaffe Memo: Part 7, Religion, Politics, Scientism, Climate Change, and Secular Humanism

  1. We agree as to many things, Anthony. It would be absurd to expect political leaders to set public policy while artificially trying not to bring into the discussion their own individual senses of morality. You’re as welcome to act on your worldview as I am on mine. Neither of us are government employees, and so neither of us has the added burden of preventing government sponsorship of one religion over another or none that comes with being a government employee.

    I do think that politicians should steer away from simply declaring to be untrue discoveries that scientists have made. They should not base public policy on repudiating those findings, unless they can articulate a case for why those findings ought to be ignored. If politicians wish to take no action on climate change, it is their responsibility to show why it would be better not to. I’m not talking about law here – politicians can and will say what they want to – but I think it useless when they simply denounce without analyzing.

    Where I disagree with you is in your insistence that, from a legal perspective, the state should make no effort to avoid commingling religion in particular with the state. It is clear from the historical record that the Founders were deeply concerned in particular about the harmful effects of giving a particular religion the authority of the state. They were reacting against the existence and enforcement of regulations relating to the established Church of England. They did not have similar concerns about preventing the commingling of the state with scientific ideas. In fact, Franklin in particular spent a great deal of time trying to promote science in the colonies. Insofar as you feel it is unfair to prevent government employees from asserting the rightness of their religion while not preventing them from asserting the correctness of science, then, you are arguing for the law to take an unfamiliar and novel approach that more closely resembles what the Founders were fighting to prevent than what they were fighting for.

    if we’ve eliminated religion from the public sphere, where can this moral justification come from?

    You consider religion and morality to be co-extensive, and that’s why this would disturb you. In reality, plenty of people who don’t share your particular religion, or who don’t believe in God at all, are able to practice morality. Philosophers ever since Spinoza (in the modern era) and Epicurus and Confucius (going back to ancient times) have articulated moral standards independently of the assumption that there are gods looking at what we do.

    You’re right that Obama’s call for free and open inquiry clearly has limits. He opposes research into human cloning. He opposes making emergency contraception available to teenagers. He has moral standards that he imposes that constrain his view of what science is appropriate. Perhaps that’s because he is a Christian. There’s certainly no evidence whatsoever that he is “atheistic” or “humanist” in his worldview. What Obama does do is to accept as given, which you do not, the secular nature of American law, and the impropriety of government sponsorship of religion. So do the vast majority of Americans. That’s not evidence of “atheism.”

    He has every right, as President, to bring his own sense of morality to bear on public policy, even if sometimes he will make the wrong call. All I would like to see is that he carefully considers what the professional scientists – in this case, at NIH – are telling him, which in this case was that there is no medical reason to not make emergency contraception available over the counter to teenagers. He should articulate why he thinks that it is more important to force teenagers to go through the medically risky procedure of early childbirth for the sake of an unwanted baby, than to allow them to safely prevent the implantation of a blastocyst.

    First of all, we have the notion that it is ‘scientifically proved’ that the earth is warming and that it is the fault of humans. For the purposes of what follows, let us grant these as actual empirical facts. Now, how do we get from these facts to “We must reduce the earth’s population”?

    Indeed, how do we get from one to the other? We get there by crossing the chasm between “things the administration actually believes” and “things Anthony imagines the administration secretly believes”. It’s especially notable that you imply that the government actively wishes to reduce the earth’s population, as opposed to, say, encouraging education, informing people about contraception, and leaving them to make their own decisions. The way you phrase it, the only way for the administration not to be secretly wishing to kill people would be for them to impose a blanket ban on medical professionals discussing contraception such as that existing before the 1920s.

    the people implementing these agendas are dishonest, and lie endlessly about their real purposes and objectives.

    This is the key assumption necessary to your argument. The great benefit of it is that nothing whatever that the government then does can threaten your argument. Why not go full-on, and argue that the administration has a secret plan to round citizens up, put them in FEMA camps and pursue a currency and political union of the US with Mexico? There’s as much evidence for that as there is for these vaporings about a secret population control agenda. There is no secularist conspiracy to impose forced sterilization, minimum numbers of children and what not. These policies are part of your heated imagination of what the dastardly liberals may secretly want, and I hope very much that that’s where they will stay. I would like to reassure you, as a liberal, that if such liberals exist who want to impose such policies, I have never encountered one.

    Any public policy at all, no matter how beneficial or kind or helpful to ordinary people living their lives, can be argued to be serving some nefarious and secret agenda. We can’t evaluate and judge a public policy on the basis of hypothetical and secret future possibilities. In the end, all you are saying is that when liberals express a desire to make people’s lives easier and better, you hear only a horrific future of tyranny and despair where bureaucrats dictate your every move. I’m sure that is what you hear, and that makes me feel sorry for you, but that doesn’t make it true.

  2. “Neither of us are government employees,”

    Actually, I am an elected official. 😉

    “Where I disagree with you is in your insistence that, from a legal perspective, the state should make no effort to avoid commingling religion in particular with the state.”

    I know that our previous conversations on this series have run up against that, but the series itself is not geared towards this issue in particular. I am hesitant to get into it, but would like to counter your analysis by pointing out that while you are right that the founders were deeply wary of having a state religion, many of these same people went on to craft state constitutions and other legal documents that often contained explicit ‘religious’ phraseology.

    So, either they were incoherent nutjobs, or their notion about what constituted the establishment of religion differs from what YOU think they thought. 🙂

    But that’s really not my point in the series.

    “You consider religion and morality to be co-extensive, and that’s why this would disturb you. In reality, plenty of people who don’t share your particular religion, or who don’t believe in God at all, are able to practice morality.”

    In actual truth, the ones making the case that religion and morality are co-extensive are the secular humanists. If I try to act on my moral principles, they ‘flatten’ morality into ‘religion’ and on this basis, believe I should not promote what I promote or object to what I object to. If THEY act on their moral principles, since of course they regard themselves as NOT religious, they can do whatever they want. Their every act, by definition (in their view), is secular. As such, it is ALWAYS permissible.

    I discuss this more in part 9.

    Now, either morality reduces to religion or it does not. If it does, then if I cannot act on my moral principles, neither can they. If it does not, then I can act on my moral principles, just as they can. You can’t have it both ways, but this is what they are trying to accomplish.

    For the purposes of this series, it doesn’t make much difference which side one comes down on in regards to that issue. What matters is consistency.

    If this series was directed at the secular humanists themselves, I would spend more time showing how their own views can be justifiably labeled ‘religious,’ but they are not my real target. Still, you will recall that I did allude to it.

    “Perhaps that’s because he is a Christian.”

    Or a muslim. 😉

    “There’s certainly no evidence whatsoever that he is “atheistic” or “humanist” in his worldview.”

    That depends on whether or not definitions matter.

    “He has every right, as President, to bring his own sense of morality to bear on public policy, even if sometimes he will make the wrong call.”

    I’m fine with that. But note again that he didn’t have the courage to admit that this is what he was doing in the example I gave. He cloaked it in ‘Science’, even though it was his own sense of morality. Did not Bush also have the same right? But Obama derided this as being driven by ‘ideology.’

    Again, you can’t have it both ways. The humanists want it both ways. I’m not going to let them, and neither should any other religionist.

    “Indeed, how do we get from one to the other? We get there by crossing the chasm between “things the administration actually believes” and “things Anthony imagines the administration secretly believes”.”

    Uh, my beliefs about what the administration believes comes from their own writings. I took the time to read the writings of John Holdren, Cass Sunstein, Ezekiel Emmanuel, Van Jones, Thomas Frieden, etc. You?

    But you’re getting ahead of yourself. The Obama administration is not the target of this series. Secular humanism and liberalism over the last 150 years is.

    That’s why your notion that I am writing in context only of the American constitution is false. I know I fueled that notion by jumping in on some comments on it, but in fact this is a global phenomena with historic roots.

    I am only reacting to what these people have actually said. I’m not reading their minds. If they didn’t believe what they actually said, they shouldn’t have written it down.

    I think this disagreement between you and me on this ‘chasm’ is twofold. 1., You personally have no idea what these people say and have been saying and assume I’m making it up whole cloth and 2., For examples where you do have knowledge, YOU don’t believe they mean what they really say, but I do.

    I’ve already given sufficient evidence that there are ‘sinister’ motivations for some of these ‘well meaning’ measures. I included the Ginsburg quote for the express purpose of putting to rest the notion that I was being conspiratorial. It was a perfect example, because it tied everything up so neatly.

    In making remarks about the Hyde Amendment, Ginsburg said:

    Yes, the [Harris v. McRae] ruling about that surprised me. Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.

    There is no secret imaginations here. Ginsburg clearly states that she:

    1., Believed that Roe was decided with population growth in mind.
    2., Believed that the growth of CERTAIN populations were in mind, in particular.
    3., Believed that Roe was going to be parlayed into Medicaid funding for abortion.

    Comprehending these three points requires nothing more than simple literacy. Ginsburg, the ultimate liberal, believed that was the driving force behind these proposals, and was surprised that the Harris ruling upheld the Hyde Amd; after all, wasn’t the whole point all along to reduce certain populations through abortions? How befuddling that anyone would now restrict abortions in Medicaid, when that had been a purpose of Medicaid all along?

    Then, in evaluating the SCOTUS case itself, we discover that liberals argued that it was a violation of church and state to support pregnancies but oppose abortion, because this ‘coincided’ with the religious views of Catholics. Remember, FOUR court justices found this argument to be valid.

    All this flies in the face of your notion that there aren’t liberals who thought this, or think this, or that I’m just making it up.

    Your answer to all this: “I feel sorry for you, dear man, for how could you oppose a government program, ‘no matter how beneficial or kind or helpful to ordinary people living their lives’?

    Now, aren’t you interested to know what ‘populations’ Ginsburg thought Medicaid was going to reduce? You just continue on your merry way, ‘helping the poor,’ ignoring facts, like, for example, black people have more abortions proportionately than white people, and black people receive government assistance proportionately more than white people. Gee, it almost begins to look like the ‘populations that we don’t want to have too many of’ are BLACK populations.

    The really funny thing about this exchange is that you think YOU are the compassionate one. My friend, you’re the one standing by while members of your ‘camp’ are carrying out an OPENLY STATED agenda. Your argument seems to be that targeting black people may have been the purpose of such programs and proposals in the past, but today we carry out those programs for other reasons; the fact that they may still have the same effect as the originators of those proposals should not be seen as evil, because unlike them, our intentions are good.

    This is a case in point in my analysis that what separates conservatives and liberals is not their sense of compassion, but whether or not they are in touch with reality. IN REALITY, Medicaid was meant to target black populations and ensure that they had ample access to abortion. Is that still the reality? The facts would suggest so.

    A truly compassionate person would actually care to investigate.

    But I suppose the fact that Planned Parenthood more often than not sets up shop in urban areas with high concentrations of black people, while doing everything in their power to get subsidies from the government- fiercely supported in that effort by liberals, Democrats, and secular humanists- doesn’t smell sufficiently fishy to you to justify the investigation.

    Fortunately, you are not the target of this series. Hopefully the real targets of this series will heed my word of caution, and, wishing to meld both compassion and reality together, will take action as they see appropriate.

    But thanks for your comment, as always! 😉

  3. Anthony,

    You are still bridging the gulf between what some liberals argue for and your dystopia of extra-tyrannous bureaucratic terror, with a tissue of suspicion and extrapolations. If you take a quote one decade from one person, and another from another person in another decade, and keep going, you could generate a conspiracy out of any material whatsoever.

    I could after all, without much effort, generate a conspiracy theory regarding a Handmaid’s-Tale-style theocratic takeover of the federal government using the same tactics as you use, and with conservatives of similar prominence – let’s say, Pat Robertson, Clarence Thomas, Generals William Boykin and Curtis LeMay, Ann Coulter and Richard Nixon. That wouldn’t make it true.

    What gives your tissue weight in your mind is your prior suspicion of liberals’ motives in general, which makes you more liable to believe repellent things of people you identify as being liberals. To see tyranny in references to “concern about population growth” and “Medicaid funding for abortion”, you have to already believe that those are steps to tyranny. It requires not only the “simple literacy” you claim, but also suspicion of liberals’ true motives.

    As far as I’m concerned, I wouldn’t have any problem with the idea of Medicaid providing abortions. As things stand, if a middle-class woman needs an abortion, she can pretty much get one; if a poor woman needs an abortion, she finds a thousand legal and financial burdens placed on her, that in turn increase the number of late-term versus early-term abortions to the detriment of the mother’s health. It’s almost as if our society deems poor women in particular to be unable to make their own decisions, isn’t it?

    As for the locations of Planned Parenthood clinics, Planned Parenthood reports that 73% of its locations are in “rural or medically underserved areas”; the Guttmacher Institute reports that only 9% of the nation’s abortion clinics are in majority-black areas. http://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2011/01/19/Guttmacher-Advisory.pdf
    Planned Parenthood do try to get subsidies from the government to provide services to poor people, excluding abortions which cannot be funded by the Hyde Amendment. For example, most recently they have sought substantial funding for preventative breast examinations. Democrats tend to support those efforts and Republicans to oppose them.

    So, no, none of that does seem fishy to me.

    Please explain, if you are willing to back it up, why what Obama says makes him seem like an “atheist” to you. Is it simply that he does not endorse your views on the role of religion in government? Can you point to anything he says where he has endorsed, praised or supported atheism? I somehow doubt that he publicly and repeatedly professes Christianity but privately enjoys urinating on crucifixes.

  4. “As far as I’m concerned, I wouldn’t have any problem with the idea”

    And that’s why the series is not aimed at you. It is interesting that you feel it so necessary to dismiss what I’m saying as conspiracy mongering. Even if what I’m saying is true, you don’t really have objections to it if it is true. It would be fun to pick apart the psychology of that, but that WOULD be mind reading. 😉

    It is funny to me that you would cite the Guttmacher Institute to me. You do realize what the GI is, right? Would you care to also tell us for the record what that same report tells us about the rates of abortion are for black people compared to other folks?

    Why is it that you chose to omit that salacious fact?

    Now, regarding your spurious charge that this is ‘conspiracy mongering’, stringing quotes together through the decades, anyone who has read this series or my blog knows that this is a completely false statement. You do realize that the Ginsburg quote was just from a couple of years ago, right? Are you aware that Ginsburg is a CURRENT Supreme Court Justice?

    Moreover, in my last comment, I cited a number of names that are (or were until recently) members of the Obama administration. Their (in my view) outrageous statements span the last forty years and continue to this day.

    It is PRECISELY THIS FACT which makes this series pertinent. We aren’t talking about comments restricted to 1920 era liberals and 1930 nazis. The Jaffe Memo was written in 1969, John Holdren put his name to a book that said that compulsory abortion could be justified under the constitution in the 1970s- and DID NOT repudiate it at his congressional hearings. Diane Francis just 2 years ago called for a global one child policy. And in the next part, I document this even further.

    So, if you are lurking in this conversation, I’d suggest that you ignore Alex’s attempts to wave this off as conspiracy-mongering. This stuff is in play right now.

    “Please explain, if you are willing to back it up, why what Obama says makes him seem like an “atheist” to you.”

    No thanks.

  5. The report I linked to says nothing about the rates of abortion for black people compared to other folks. If the Guttmacher Institute has produced other work that covers that fact, please link to it.

    You specifically argued that Planned Parenthood had located most of its clinics in majority-black areas. I provided counter-evidence from pro-choice organizations that this is not the case. Using Google Maps, I cross-checked with the locations in my area (the Boston area). There are Planned Parenthood clinics in Fenway and Allston in the city of Boston (these are areas with a low black population in a city whose 22% black population is heavily concentrated in Dorchester, Mattapan and Roxbury), Davis Square (7% black), Marlborough (2.8% black) and Milford (2.3% black). The percentages of black population are from the Census. So I have to think that, unless you present countervailing data of your own, you’re not telling the truth about Planned Parenthood here.

    As for the names you cite, what evidence have you offered that they have anything in common other than all being Democrats? If you have the impression that all Democrats are participating in a vast and well-organized conspiracy to do something, then you must be talking about a different Democratic party than the one I know. I mean, bless us all, but if you gather ten Democrats in a room, we can barely come to agreement over what to have for dinner, let alone a concerted plan for the overthrow of God.

    So I can well believe that Ginsburg would like on the whole to see Medicaid provide abortions. John Holdren probably does believe that the US Constitution can be interpreted in such a manner that mandatory abortions could be found to be constitutional – though he repudiates utterly that they would be moral. Cass Sunstein does believe in designing incentives such that they “nudge” people towards socially desirable outcomes, and he may number having fewer kids among those outcomes – he calls this “libertarian paternalism”. Van Jones – well, it’s hard to know what you’re referring to, but perhaps it’s that he was a communist as a young man, or that he believes in “eco-capitalism”? Thomas Frieden has suggested in his position as the head of the CDC, various streamlining proposals that would reduce medical privacy; and Ezekiel Emmanuel’s proposed Complete Lives System for organ transplantation seems reasonably valid and well-thought-out as an initial take on how to deal with organ shortages; if you have a better system in mind, I would recommend that you name one.

    You see what I mean? These are all different people, with different policy interests, and you present no evidence whatsoever that they are working towards a common goal, be it Jaffe’s or Satan’s or anybody else’s. Indeed, you present nothing that shows that they know each other, unless there’s a weekly meetup in DC for “People The Right Wing Fulminates Against”.

    You’re not presenting evidence of a conspiracy here, Anthony. At the very most, you’re presenting evidence that a range of Democrats tend to think differently from you on a variety of issues relating loosely to medical care. And on that, I think you’re absolutely right.

  6. “The report I linked to says nothing about the rates of abortion for black people compared to other folks. If the Guttmacher Institute has produced other work that covers that fact, please link to it.”

    Why? Would it matter? I get the distinct impression you wouldn’t care. But I apologize for thinking you had linked to the report that contained in the info. As you may gather, I didn’t actually click through to your link. I don’t generally turn to the GI for information I want to hang my hat on, though obviously its fun to deploy when it undermines their agenda. 🙂

    You’ll find it if you really care.

    “[You specifically argued that Planned Parenthood had located most of its clinics in majority-black areas.”

    No, I said:

    “But I suppose the fact that Planned Parenthood more often than not sets up shop in urban areas with high concentrations of black people”

    That’s not the same.

    “I provided counter-evidence from pro-choice organizations that this is not the case.”

    Yes you did. 🙂

    “As for the names you cite, what evidence have you offered that they have anything in common other than all being Democrats?”

    In this series? I have already provided evidence and linked to it. I recall specifically in regards to John Holdren. On this blog I have gone after many of the others. Feel free to make use of the search feature. Better yet, since you appear to be clueless about what these people have explicitly advocated, why don’t you go educate yourself? Then you can decide for yourself whether or not you are being duped.

    This series is not geared towards roping in the Obama administration, as I already indicated. I have roped some of them into other blog entries. 🙂 On topics that I am raising in the series itself, I have already given documentation as I’ve gone along. You’re the one trying to side track the conversation. My series is not done, and there will be even more documentation to come ON THE TOPICS RAISED IN THE SERIES.

    I don’t have time to get into a slog-fest with a commentator who isn’t even among the class of individuals my series is aimed at.

    “I mean, bless us all, but if you gather ten Democrats in a room, we can barely come to agreement over what to have for dinner, let alone a concerted plan for the overthrow of God.”

    You will recall that I have already made this very point within the series.

    “You’re not presenting evidence of a conspiracy here, Anthony.”

    That’s right, I’m not. You imagine that this is the purpose of the series, but this is your misreading. Have I contended that there is a conspiracy? Nope. You’d do well to identify my actual points and determine if I’ve given evidence of THEM. And if I have, instead of engaging in hand waving, you should DEAL WITH THEM.

    The Ginsburg quote and the SCOTUS case in particular were chosen deliberately out of the many items that could have been offered. The cloaking of one’s moral values under the guise Science was shown using something from Herr Obama himself. I am probably 15,000 words into this series and I’m not even sure if part 10 ends it. You will just have to live with me offering one high quality example supporting each of my contentions, as fun as it would be to swamp you with hundreds of supporting links and anecdotes.

    Even I have a life. 🙂 And frankly, I know your type. You’ll fight me tooth and nail about each assertion and then after I’ve pushed you so far into a corner that you have to admit once and for all that I was substantially correct, you’ll proceed to say, “Oh, but those aren’t bad things, anyway.” If I ever had any doubt about this assessment of you, your last two comments have removed it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*