Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2002 23:03:21 -0000
From: auvenj@mailcity.com ("auvenj")
Subject: [lpaz-discuss] Faith and Gubernatorial Candidates
To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: lpaz-discuss@yahoogroups.com


--- In lpaz-discuss@y..., "Alan Fanning" <apfanning@n...> wrote:
> I suppose that philosophical libertarians are just constitutionally unsuited

> for electoral politics.  Because of an issue that has been out of the states

> hands for 30 years, that may suddenly become one IF the Supreme Court

> reverses itself AND there is no federal law to muddy the waters and IF the

> state legislature passes a law, then the Governor MAY have the power to

> restrict....


What part of "However, that is not my real reason for being unable to 
defend a vote for Gary." was unclear?  

> And the reason Gary holds this opinion holds no weight with you at all.


Quite the contrary, it is the only weight that matters since as we 
have all agreed his chances of actually affecting the issue are slim.

> You

> are so sure that a human life does not exist or is not "sentient" at 26

> weeks that the right to life is waved away as so much smoke.


You haven't been reading my posts, Alan.  I'm not at all sure whether 
a fetus at 26 weeks is sapient.  The notion I reject is an 
administrative assignment of rights based upon merely being alive and 
having human DNA.  My position is simply that the crime of murder be 
defined as "killing a sapient being without just cause (ie self-
defense)".  If a prosecutor wants to prosecute someone for killing a 
fetus at 26 weeks, it's up to the jury to decide if the fetus was 
sapient.

> You say you

> have no faith.  Of course you do.  You worship every day at the altar of

> Science and Logic.


When I made the statement about faith, I stated my definition 
of "faith", which is Biblical:  "The substance of things hoped for, 
and the evidence of things not yet seen."  As defined by the Bible, 
faith takes the place of substance and evidence.  In saying that I do 
not have faith, I am stating that I do not accept ANY substitute for 
substance and evidence as means to determining truth.  In your 
statement, you use the word "faith" not as the Bible defines it, but 
one step removed: as a placeholder for one's _choice_, said choice 
being whether or not to accept substitutes for substance and 
evidence.  Instead of the Biblical "faith = substance and evidence", 
you are saying "faith = choice about accepting substitutes for 
substance and evidence".

Your statement boils down tonothing more than mere 
semantics:  "Choosing reason = having 'faith' in reason".  OK, if you 
want to define it that way, then we have to call the Biblical 
definition something else, like "religious faith".  In that case, I 
have 'faith' in reason and you have 'faith' in religious faith.  
Either way, it doesn't change the fact that there IS a significant 
difference in the way that you and I determine truth about the world, 
and no amount of semantic twisting is going to change that.  

Similarly, you take a commonly understood physical action, "worship 
at the altar" and apply the term in a nonsensical way to a purely 
mental choice, in an apparent attempt to equate our decision making 
processes.  You (presumably) enter a physical church on a regular 
basis and worship at a physical altar.  I do no such thing.  If you 
want to _redefine_ "worship at the altar" to be "choose to accept" I 
suppose you can, but it doesn't alter (pun intended) the reality of 
our situation one iota.  You say I "worship at the altar of 
Science/Logic" = I choose not to accept any substitute for substance 
and evidence in determining truth.  You say you "worship at the altar 
of God" = you choose to accept a substitute for substance and 
evidence.

Your words obscure rather than enlighten.  Instead of recognizing 
that one may choose to have various religious faiths or reject faith 
altogether, you redefine "faith" so as to require only a choice of 
what one has "faith" in.  Instead of recognizing that one may choose 
to worship at various altars or not to worship at any altar, you 
redefine the act of "worship" so as to require only a choice of which 
altar one "worships".  This is not particularly useful, IMHO.  If 
you're going to use words like "faith" and "worship" in unusual ways, 
at least state your working definitions of each term so that we can 
talk intelligently.

> What is not known to the apostles of this faith is

> automatically not true.


What is not known...is simply 'not known'.  There is a presumption of 
falsehood for extraordinary claims, much as a suspect claimed by the 
state to be a criminal is rightly presumed to be "innocent until 
proven guilty".  A claim that Allah will reward Islamic martyrs with 
a bunch of virgins in the afterlife is rationally presumed to be 
false until proven true.

Many postulations are simply not known to be either true or false:  
there is either no evidence at all or the evidence is contradictory.  
A good example is the question, "is there intelligent life on other 
planets?"  A rational answer is "I don't know."  I have good reason 
to suspect that there could be, but no evidence proving that there 
actually is.  So I take no position on the matter.  I certainly don't 
say it's "automatically not true."

> There are reasons why abortion, infanticide and

> euthanasia were anathema to the world's major religions for centuries.  They

> are all de-humanizing practices that reflect a savage society.  In an age

> where the State holds life and death power over its subjects like noage

> before, I tremble at the thought of what has so recently become permissible

> becoming mandatory.


At the risk of sounding "de-humanized", I think we are far too 
focused on human DNA.  Sapience is what is valuable about human life, 
not the DNA sequence that (usually) leads to it.

> NOTA is fine when it is on the ballot.  No one will count your abstention.

> The whole point of an election is to hold a ceremony that imparts legitimacy

> by participating.  Not voting is always an option, however what are you

> going to tell folks in the general?  Matt Salmon or Janet Napalitano are

> just the same as Gary or Barry?  Everyone is flawed.  Saying that neither of

> these guys are good enough for your vote is just a cop-out.


My answer for the general is the same as the primary, presuming 
neither Barry nor Gary change substantially.  On principle, I cannot 
publicly defend a vote for Barry or Gary, and I SURE as hell cannot 
publicly defend a vote for Matt "let's fix the public schools" Salmon 
or Janet NapoliReno.

This is somewhat analogous to what the ALP did in regards to the 
marijuana medicalization proposition.  No matter how much they really 
wanted marijuana to be available to medical patients, they could not 
defend a vote for the proposition because it entailed new government 
spending.  So the ALP officially published an argument against the 
medical marijuana initiative in the voter guide, much to the 
consternation of pragmatic Libertarians statewide.  They were quick 
to add, however, that what one does in the privacy of the voting 
booth may sometimes be different from what one can defend publicly on 
principle.

The same idea applies here, Alan.  I can't publicly endorse Barry 
because I believe he deceived his contributors.  I can't publicly 
endorse Gary because of his approach to the abortion issue.  When I 
get in the voting booth on Sept 10th and November 5th, I may or may 
not choose to personally vote for one of them on pragmatic grounds.

--Jason Auvenshine



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
4 DVDs Free +s&p Join Now
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pt6YBB/NXiEAA/MVfIAA/JdSolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Community Web Page:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/community/lpaz-discuss 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/