I dream of a hard and brutal mysticism in which the naked self merges with a non-human world and yet somehow survives still intact, individual, separate. Paradox and bedrock.
But surely there was time for a few more intellectual adventures before retiring to an office at the Hoover Institution or some other nursing home of the mind.
The mere fact that I am standing here running for president of the United States with the views that I have, that are different in some respects on some of these issues, shows that we much more adequately represent the length and breadth and the opinions of America than the other party does…
–Rudy
All right you baited me.Interesting articles.Re Hitchen’s:I know little about him, but dismissal of god based on evolution or creation accounts shows ignorance both of the science, and the religious accounts. At the least, they agree that something was created out of nothing. That energy created matter. To dismiss God out of hand is foolish and narrow minded. In this modern age, the more we learn, the more convinced I am personally.My dad likes to say that more people have died in the name of god than any other. He believes this sincerely, but he is sincerely wrong. Christianity, properly lived out by a few, has done more good for more of humanity than all the atheists of this world combined.Re Guiliani:I don’t know how liberals ended up on the wrong side of the most critical moral and human rights issue to confront this nation since slavery. If anything, it makes sense for the liberals to defend the unborn and those without a voice, and the conservatives to sell them out. I have never understood this.Imagine if Guiliani was talking about slavery:“One is I believe slavery is wrong,” he said. “I think it is morally wrong, and if I were asked my advice by someone who was considering owning slaves, I would tell them not to do it.”“Because I think ultimately even if you disagree, you have to respect the fact that their conscience is as strong as yours is about this, and they’re the ones that are most affected by it,” he said. “So therefore I would grant slave owners the right to make that choice.”40 million human lives have been lost to this genocide alone in the USA, not to mention the world. How many more before it rightly goes the way of slavery.If I were faced with a choice between a strongly conservative candidate who supported “abortion rights” (killing the unborn), versus a flaming liberal “anti abortion” (Pro-life) candidate, at that moment, the conservatives have lost my vote.I will vote this one issue to my grave.Thanks for the links. Reminds me how out of touch I am with New York, and apparently the most vocal parts of society. I do, however, represent, the “silent majority” too busy working, paying taxes to support the government, and raising families to write for the Times.
I found parts (many, actually) of the first article flippantly arrogant, but it made me curious to read Hitchen’s book. I respect Hitchens, he seems to me one of the more honest public intellectuals out there, insofar as he doesn’t shy away from contradictions in his work. Worth listening too.I’ve been thinking lots about abortion as of late, mainly because so many of my students are against it, and to be frank they are the people that I see as benefiting most from that right being preserved. I’d be out of a job if most of their entries into the world had been delayed half a decade. This raises class issues that make me uncomfortable, especially when I catch myself conflating intellectual advantage with a moral one. But I find the pragmatic question ironclad; most of the juveniles who end up adjudicated were born to parents under the age of 22. Eric, your comparison with slavery is a really good one. My first thought is that, until birth, the fetus’ life is not seperate from the mothers and thus government constraint of her right to choose it’s fate is analogous to slavery insofar as it’s a civil rights violation. However, the assertion that the individual life of a child begins earlier takes the legs out of that argument. I don’t like government involvement in such things, but folks in Mississippi said that in 1860, and in Utah in 1880. It’s a good question, and I thank you for giving me cause to think about it in a different way.
I personally feel (and sincerely hope) that Roe V. Wade will eventually be regarded with the Dred Scott case as one of the court’s worst moments.The parallels are interesting. Definition of personhood being the critical point.What happened in Utah in 1880? Polygamy outlawed?
Yep. The head of the church received a “revelation,” that allowed Utah to take steps towards statehood.
Bedrock & Paradox 
Leave a comment