Tom Flynn:

“Is killing a human embryo of greater moral weight than starving to death the citizens of New Orleans following a hurricane”

I will forward your concerns to former Governor Kathleen Babineaux Blanco and Mayor Ray Nagin. Apparently they were occupied in discussion about the value of human embryos when they should have been doing disaster and evacuation planning.

Because they listen to people like me. Bloggers. We have all the answers. Oh, wait, no, we have nothing but our frail little opinions, which no one cares about. Never mind.

HEY, IT’S HAPPENING AGAIN. SOMEONE ELSE IS USING MY FAKE NAME. WHINE, CRY. FROM NOW ON, TO SPOUT MY NONSENSICAL AND KNEEJERK, RIGHTWING, PARTY LINE B.S. I’LL BE HIDING BEHIND A NEW FAKE NAME.

PEACE OUT - Iconoclastic Whogivesacrap

Sagesaurus, you OK? Don’t tumble off the edge now, this place actually needs your edgy contributions.

Smith:

“Sagesaurus, you OK? Don’t tumble off the edge now, this place actually needs your edgy contributions.”

Thank you for your concern. I’m up against some very clever and ambidextrous liberals who can type on a keyboard with one thumb while the other is inserted in a posterior orifice and then switch off in the blink of an eye. Sometimes posting is slowed because of excess switching but I did say they were liberals, didn’t I?

Anybody can post under any name they choose, registered to another person or not, even if it’s horribly inconvenient. I have complained to Post-Dispatch management and they are incapable of computer matching the Email address of a registered poster to the one filching that name, even though it’s required for use. Incompetent systems staff must be the bane of those on the left.

Payday has to be confusing for them too, who knows whose check they are getting?

The entire position of moral authority holds the debate in place.

The above letter is more of the same.

The debate has become one of righteousness. It will circle back on itself.

Another, take care when you base an argument on moral authority. To actually make it work, the person claiming moral authority actually has to live it in all ways.

To use one of the examples of the letter writer: If we claim moral authority in combat operations, that means that we adhere to our own stated moral imperatives at all times. Gitmo, abu Ghraib, and ‘extraordinary rendition’ all appear to damage our moral authority by engaging in hair splitting about the geneva conventions or stating that we’re just doing unto them what they would do unto us if they could.

Right and wrong, by the way, are not determined by laws. Laws, on the other hand, are supposed to be created with an understanding of right and wrong.

hs,

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. I agree with everything you say.

I consider moral authority a manifestation of righteousness.

I consider both to be limited tools in making a difference in the world. They hold the debate in place with no difference in the world except the self glorification of each position at the ecxpense of making our opponent wrong.

I heard Obama use the phrase in a recent interview, “I will close Guantanamo. America doesn’t torture.”

I got that statement to the center of my very being. I said to myself, “Yes.”

His intention was not authoritative, but to what inspired him. I got it.

He followed it with the comment and this is not exact, that it will begin to restore our moral authority in the world.

One is powerful, one isn’t.

We declare who we are, the outcomes will be what they will be. We do not take these actions to maintain our moral authroity. We take them because of who we are and what we are committed to.

Reminding ourselves of what we are inspired by, and the commitments we make to further them is powerful.

Claiming we are right about it, isn’t.

If that isn’t clear, let me know.

hs,

Another point related to another thread, the risk of engaging in a debate about moral issues is the temptation to use reason. The above letter demonstrates what occurs for me as silliness.

Measuring the value of life to support a position of protecting it?

The opponent to the writer’s view has already won the point by taking the letter writer off topic. He has gained the advantage by drawing the debate into one of reason about what is more right and more wrong.

Reason is effective in maintaining reason.

To use it to defend a position of moral authority keeps it a debate of reason. The “best” reasons win, or even better still, we can disagree about what is right and what is wrong. In eihter case, it remains incomplete. Views are not shifted, only strengthened and reinforced, entrenched in reason.

Reason is not a substitute for choice, nor is it an aid to choice. Reasons best use is to manage reason.

Also, do not confuse my use of choice with the abortion debate choice.

Which is a perfect example of collapsing faith and reason to avoid being responsibility for what we believe.

When does life begin, is another example of a righteous debate. As Mike would say, consider that train has left the station. It’s too late, life has already begun.

All there is to do now is disrupt or end it.

Ooops,

See how easy it is to make other’s wrong. I presented my own belief in a way that disagreement with me would make the other wrong. Without maintaining a clearing for a free and powerful choice, other’s will resist what I am sharing as inauthentic and manipulative.

“All there is to do now is disrupt or end it.”

All there is to do now is to accept it or not.