151. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33186 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 2:27 pm

"If anyone can have a civilized conversation with that guy, it's gotta be Dawkins."

Agreed. An interview with O'Reilly is pretty much a loser for anyone, so we are in the realm of damage minimization. Dawkins should be better equipped than most to come off neutral.

152. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33140 by krogercomplete on April 19, 2007 at 1:01 pm

Who is Mr. Robertson?

153. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #32980 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 11:17 pm

I've got to agree with AndyD. Sam is one of the most compelling debater/speakers on this subject that I have heard. I saw a lecture of his on C-Span Book TV to a group of rabbis shortly after The End of Faith was released. Been hooked ever since.

154. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32978 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 10:54 pm

"Morality is simply common sense, the application of the golden rule and evolution derived empathy. Allow your ingroup to encompass everyone and it's case closed. We don't need to overthink it."

What were all you philosophers thinking? What a waste of time.

155. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32954 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 8:13 pm

roach said:

"Why do we all seem to think that there are only two options when it comes to morality? Why does morality have to be either objective or subjective? Can it not be progressive? I would argue that since morality is part of the human condition, it evolves and progresses along with us. Is there something wrong with this line of thought?"

A good point. Maybe it is too limiting to break the world of morality into two spheres. Though, what you are describing sounds like subjective morality to me in that it is a matter of societal consensus. In other words, morality is what we decide it is. Please correct me if I am misinterpreting you.

156. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32929 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 6:21 pm

Jessie wrote:

"Why isn't pain an objective thing? Define to me what you mean by objective."

The sensation of pain is certainly real, but that is not the point. When we ask whether or not inflicting pain is objectively right or wrong, we are assuming that pain is real. The fact that there is pain doesn't necessarily say anything about whether or not we should inflict it on others (as an objective matter). Well, pain hurts, right? So what? This may seem like a bullshit answer, but the "so what" is really the heart of the matter. For theists, the objective standard comes from God, God gives us the measuring stick. For Plato, it was the forms. Kant had his categorical imperative thing (sorry, I need to brush up on my Kant).

157. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32926 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 6:12 pm

Jessie wrote:

"Fine. Let's hear your ideas on morality. Or do you figure that if people on a message board can't come up with something totally objective, we all may as well just allow all sorts of atrocities to occur? What's your point, exactly?

Do you want to use the Bible as your standard? Nevermind that it contains all sorts of atrocities and the God character in it is one of the most malicious individuals ever presented in all of literature. What makes a few-thousand year old book the gold standard in morality? How is it objective? Where's the hard, objective evidence that God exists? Do you really think we should execute all homosexuals, as the Bible suggests?"

Lets take a breath here. Not once did I say I was a theist. In my first post to this article I made it clear that I resented the theist assumption that God was the only possible objective standard of morality. I also made clear that I have no idea what could possibly account for objective morality or whether there even was such a thing as objective morality. The question troubles me, and the examples you gave were not sufficient.

John Phillips wrote:

"Try the golden rule, i.e. do unto others as you would have them do unto you. A practise that is obviously of evolutionary advantage as it can be observed daily throughout the animal kingdom and not just in humans. By your arguments, there must be something really screwed up about humans as according to you they need the threat of the fairy godfather in the sky to keep them 'moral' while others in the animal kingdom don't."

I like the golden rule very much, but you have not offered up any objective, meta-ethical justification for such a rule. This is the difficult situation we find ourselves in whenever we start talking about objective morality. The theist inserts God as the objective standard by which we measure every normative set of ethics. As I understand the argument (as presented by theists such as William Lane Craig), it mattes not whether anyone actually follows the bible or fears god, or reacts based on the threat of punishment. The point is that without god there can be no ultimate objective standard, there can never be objective answers to moral questions. Now, I am not satisfied with this, but it speaks to a deeper issue that has been neglected.

158. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32902 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 4:29 pm

"Pretty much any creature with a sufficiently advanced nervous system will behave in a way that helps it avoid pain. It's in most creature's interests to avoid it."

We cannot make the mistake of turning an "is" into an "ought." We are trying to get at "oughts" here.

"Almost all humans agree that pain - physical or mental - is a negative state that should be avoided."

This is not a case for objectivity. The fact that "almost all humans" agree on something does not make it objectively true. There is another level we need to get at, a deeper standard. Are you arguing that human consensus is evidence of some objective standard (i.e. there must be something objectively immoral about causing pain if so many people agree), or are you saying that causing pain is objectively immoral BECAUSE everyone agrees? The latter is a subjective moral theory.

159. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32895 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 4:14 pm

"Why are there laws against rape? Well, it produces long lasting phyiscal & mental pain to a person. You think that's a subjective criterion? It's not - pain is a real phenomenon."

There is a deeper question here. The physical reality of pain does not necessarily have anything to do with the objective immorality of causing pain. The deeper question is what makes causing pain objectively immoral?

160. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32886 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 4:00 pm

"You are a hodge-podge of neuron-firings looking into an abyss which you only think you understand. You don't really understand it because you are not thinking at all, but rather doing what chemicals always do under those conditions and at that temperature (p. 99)."

I don't get it. Is this supposed to be the old "brain-in-a-vat, reason cannot really tell us anything because none of us really know what is going on, your logical and scientific 'proofs' against God are worthless?" This has always seemed more to me like a "shoot yourself in the foot" type argument. How does pointing out human subjectivity and the futility of reason make the case for God any stronger? Seems that it would make the case for ANY positive claim to knowledge weaker.

161. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32867 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Smith,

Sorry to say, you will be going to hell.

162. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32864 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 2:09 pm

"Trying to argue any case against circumcision in the US is an incredibly uphill job."

All I meant was that the court system may not be the appropriate forum. No doubt it would be an uphill battle in the legislature.

163. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32859 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 1:51 pm

"Well, how exactly can you have objective morality without some objective standard?"

Obviously, by definition, you cannot have objective morality without an objective standard. The question is, what is that objective standard and does it have to be God? Might take some time to get to the bottom of that one. I for one wince at the theist's assumption that God is the only possible standard, but beyond that, I have no idea what might account for objective morality or if there is even objective morality in the first place.

164. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32842 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 12:35 pm

hmmmmmmmmmmmm.

165. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32839 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 12:25 pm

"I most certainly could not recommend that anybody send money."

I agree, but because the case sounds like a loser. If people are genuinely concerned about the rights of minors to consent to or refuse medical procedures in Oregon, they need to write Oregon legislators and urge changes to Oregon statutes.

166. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32835 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 12:16 pm

dhonig,

"First, if the case is as described, it has gone through a trial court and a court of appeals in Oregon, yet does not appear anywhere in Westlaw as a reported case."

Oregon trial court opinions are, as a general rule, not published. This means that they will not show up on Lexis or Westlaw. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. This means that there is no published opinion to read anywhere. In re Boldt and Boldt is listed on the official Oregon Court of Appeals Website (as cited by the above article). This matter could easily be cleared up by calling the Jackson County courthouse and requesting the judge's final order.

"Second, a case like this would, if public, certainly garner the attention of local media, but there is nothing, nada, zip about it anywhere but on anti-circumcision websites."

Not sure how conclusive this is. There are probably numerous instances of parents forcing invasive procedures on their minor children and no one ever hears about it. The fact that this is a circumcision case in the United States only reinforces the idea that no one would really care.

"Third, and perhaps most curious, if an attorney is handling it pro bono, why are donations needed to pay the legal bills?"

One pro-bono attorney has helped with the mother's case. There may very well be other attorney's involved with her case and may be an attorney (or attorney's) representing the child. There is no guarantee that this one pro-bono attorney has agreed to pay ALL the expenses or will continue to pay for the appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.

"Fourth, judges, particularly on appeal, rarely issue orders "without reasoning or testimony." Something is very fishy about this whole thing. It looks like a scam grab for money to me."

It is common practice for the Oregon Court of Appeals to affirm trial court rulings without opinion. As for the alleged lack of testimony at the trial level, it is difficult to know exactly what that means without more information.

"Fifth, Oregon Court of Appeals Opinions do not appear to include any such cases, though I was obviously not able to look at each one. But none of the cases with a 'Smith v. Smith' sort of heading had anything to do with the case described above."

Again, In re Boldt and Boldt is listed on the official Oregon Court of Appeals website. You may not be able to find this on Westlaw or Lexis because there is no published opinion. If you do find it, it will not tell you anything about the case.

As for Doctors Opposing Circumcision, it is a registered non-profit corporation in Washington. it is likely small time, but that does not really mean anything here. Probably why it needs financial help.

167. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32806 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 9:53 am

pugowner stated:

"Medical ethics and case law: There is an established principle of the mature minor - a child under the age of majority who is capable of a rational and informed decision. Problematic cases entail a mature minor's decision to forgo a life-saving procedure such as chemotherapy or a blood transfusion."

Oregon has NOT adopted the mature minor doctrine. Only a handful of US states have adopted the doctrine, and none of them (to my knowledge) have invoked it with a child this young. I see no reason to be skeptical given the outcome of the cases thus far. Minors are not empowered to give consent for medical procedures until the age of 15 in Oregon (and then, only with regard to specific procedures), and the general rule is that the consent of only ONE parent is sufficient. As troubling as it may seem, parents generally get to make medical decisions for their minor children, and I am not aware of any "medical necessity" requirement. Courts are extremely hesitant to thwart the will of parents. It should also be noted that the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion which suggests to me that the legal resolution of this case was incredibly clear cut under state law.

168. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32794 by krogercomplete on April 18, 2007 at 9:04 am

rabidchihauhau:

The only way to get information on the case at this point is to call or go to the Jackson County (Oregon) courthouse and get copies of case documents. Oregon trial courts, as a general rule, do not publish their opinions, and the Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion which means exactly what it sounds like--there is no written opinion to read (also shows you how difficult/important it found the legal questions involved). I do not know if the Oregon Supreme Court has granted certiorari yet, but it is possible that it will publish a written opinion at some point in the future.

169. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32645 by krogercomplete on April 17, 2007 at 9:19 pm

Shuggy:

Damn, that's fucked up. Thanks for the link, though. A good reality check.

170. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32578 by krogercomplete on April 17, 2007 at 12:37 pm

"You sound a little incomplete to me, like maybe part of your cock is missing and you're regretting it. Much of what you say seems very biased to me, e.g."

Part of my cock is missing.

"Any court willing to sanction bodily mutilation of a 12 year-old on a father's whim, is not worthy of the name 'civilised' as it would no doubt regard itself as. If it decides to put 'religious tradition' ahead of the young man's wishes then it's not only uncivilised but incredibly barbaric and retrogressive."

I understand your disgust, but sometimes the court has to wrestle with larger issues and feels it necessary to allow injustice in a particular instance in order to maintain a rule of law that it feels makes good policy sense. Your condemnation goes too far I think.

"People who feel outraged by forced mutilation are not being "self-righteous", they're being 'human righteous', a very good thing in my opinion."

Merely opposing circumcision is not necessarily self-righteous, but there has been some self-righteousness floating around here.

171. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32574 by krogercomplete on April 17, 2007 at 12:29 pm

"Au contraire, you wrote:

'I would put myself squarely into the apathy camp, not the self-righteous blabbering camp.'

This, I think, establishes the dichotomy you claim not to have made."

Good point. Let me clarify. The original post was not meant to put all those apathetic into one camp and all those opposed to apathy into the self-righteous camp. Certainly it would be possible to be self-righteous in one's apathy, but contrary to your previous accusations, I never condemned anyone who disagreed with my apathy.

172. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32571 by krogercomplete on April 17, 2007 at 12:22 pm

"If non-medically necessary circumcision is indeed a medical procedure, then why are we not prosecuting every Jewish rabbi for practicing medicine without a license?"

A physician is going to perform the procedure and, in the United States, circumcision is a completely ordinary, medical procedure that has nothing to do with religion most of the time. My guess is that a US court in the position described by the article will consider circumcision performed by a physician generally to be a "medical procedure." How "medical procedure" is defined for the purposes of unauthorized practice is not necessarily relevant, and I have no idea what that definition is.

173. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32564 by krogercomplete on April 17, 2007 at 12:03 pm

"Indeed, and my point is that it will be difficult to frame this as a medical decision since it isn't. I do have to agree that the court may well choose to avoid upsetting religious tradition even if it means allowing a 12-year-old to be irreversibly mutilated."

It is a medical decision insofar as it is a medical procedure. I would need to look at the transcript from the trial court, but the issue may be framed as follows: father chose to have a medical procedure performed on his minor son; son is contesting the ability of the father to make such a decision; court must decide whether father has such a right. Religion clearly is the father's motivation, but the court may want to avoid entirely the particular motivations of parents and ask focus on the broader question of whether or not parents have the right to make medical decisions for their minor children. Again, this is just my speculation.

"And completely avoiding the facts of the case at hand. It is easy to avoid thinking about the plight of infants who won't remember their bris, but another entirely to ignore the plight of a pre-teen about to have part of his penis forcibly removed with the approval of the US legal system."

I was not attempting to avoid anything or "ignore the plight of a pre-teen." I read through the posts and reacted immediately to those dealing with infants. As for the 12 year old: I disagree with the father forcing his religion on to the boy in the form of circumcision. I am conflicted at the moment about how I would prefer the legal system to resolve the conflict. I'll have to think about it some more.

"Not in and of itself, but when you claim that you 'don't give a shit' while at the same time you 'give a shit' enough to feel compelled to condemn others for having an opinion on something you allegedly don't have an opinion on, you open yourself up to a critical examination for consistency . . . You said, essentially, that you 'don't give a shit' but that anyone who does is a self-righteous blatherer. I think such position is rather self-righteous since you are saying that anyone who disagrees with your apathy is self-righteous thus making your position artificially 'critic-proof.'"

I am not defining self-righteousness as "disagreement with my apathy." Not every post to this article has been self-righteous, not every expression of an opinion on this issue is self-righteous, and not every criticism of my opinions is destined to be self-righteous. I think condemnation is a strong word. I pointed out that there has been a lot of self-righteous blabbering.

"You, of course, are free to disagree."

Thanks for the affirmation.

174. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32550 by krogercomplete on April 17, 2007 at 11:12 am

"Your statement 'All this outrage over an infant's foreskin being snipped off seems misplaced' omits the fact that we are talking about forced amputation of part of a 12-year-old's penis based on the whim of the father. Should that same father have the right to cut off his son's ear if the father joins a cult? I'm guessing you'd say no."

No. I am talking about posts displaying outrage over an infant's foreskin being snipped off.

"Except this is not a medical decision. It is specifically non-medical. It is entirely religious. It is the arbitrary forced amputation of a 12-year-old's body parts based on the whim of an adult parent who believes an invisible being wants him to cut off part of his son's penis. We don't let parents cut off other body parts from their children--not even if an invisible being wants them to."

No. My point was that the court may not be looking at this in entirely religious terms. From a legal perspective, the reasoning of the court may have little to do with religion.

"Your 'not giving a shit' is only evidence of your apathy not that the case has no merit."

It was only meant to be evidence of my apathy.

"You say that as if you are not part of it."

I would put myself squarely into the apathy camp, not the self-righteous blabbering camp. Surely it cannot be self-righteous to merely point out self-righteousness.

175. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32546 by krogercomplete on April 17, 2007 at 10:52 am

My gut reaction is that the Oregon Supreme Court is not going to reverse the lower court decisions (not by a long shot), so save your money. There are more worthwhile causes out there. There are no published opinions to read yet, but my guess is that this case has little to do with religion and everything to do with the parents' right to make medical decisions for their minor children. The Court will probably be hesitant to screw with that.

My initial reaction to all these posts was surprise. As many have mentioned, circumcision is the dominant practice in the United States (where I am from), so I guess I never really thought about it. I have no problem with my lack of foreskin and do not know any male that does. I also do not know one male that does not plan on circumcising their male son (should they have one). Clearly, these attitudes do no legitimize the practice, but I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't really give a shit. All this outrage over an infant's foreskin being snipped off seems misplaced, and the comparisons to female genital mutilation are laughable at best. Judging from the posts, it looks like there may or may not be medical benefits, may or may not be any difference in sensation/sexual pleasure, may or may not be some difference in female preference , but there certainly is alot of self righteous blabbering.

176. New Primate Species Found In 42 Million-year-old Texas Fossils

Comment #32281 by krogercomplete on April 16, 2007 at 4:30 pm

Oh my.

Favorite line:

"To believe in evolution requires that its followers must check their brains at the laboratory door. They are expected to believe without asking questions. An evolutionist is required to believe that the millions of plants, animals, insects, and all other forms of life just happened to be here. Even the universe and all the stars just happened. Really millions of miracles. There are to date no scientific (note scientific, not postulations) proofs that evolution is possible. For example: one species cannot give rise to another, because no organism is able to change its DNA by itself."

177. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31098 by krogercomplete on April 11, 2007 at 1:07 am

"That's certain. But it does more inasmuch as it obviates a defense to 'illegality' that's premised on religious duty."

See post 77. If the child brought suit against the parent under some other theory (tort for example), and the parent tried to defend using the First Amendment, the parent's argument is essentially that "any enforcement by the court of state tort law against me in this context would constitute government restriction of my free exercise of religion." I agree that this argument is bogus, but the child has no first amendment claim.

The action by the court, the particular application of tort law against the parent, is the "state action." In the child's case, there would be no state action giving rise to a first amendment claim.

178. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31095 by krogercomplete on April 11, 2007 at 12:45 am

It just occurred to me that we may be arguing about two different rights. Your latest post reads more like you are talking about the first amendment rights of the parent as opposed to the first amendment rights of the child. Your first post claimed, however, that forcing a child to go to church violated the child's rights. My argument is that the child's first amendment rights are not violated when a parent (as opposed to the government) forces him/her to go to church. I certainly agree with you that no parent (in a context like that just described) will be able to claim a first amendment right to force the child to go to church.

179. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31094 by krogercomplete on April 11, 2007 at 12:36 am

"If the parent's defense is that his/her religion demands forcing the child to church against his will, Reynolds and progeny will undermine that defense (at least by analogy)."

The free exercise clause prohibits government from restricting the free exercise of religion. The first only grants personal rights against government action. What is the state action you are envisioning here?

The first certainly applies to polygamy insomuch as state action is being challenged by whomever is asserting the first amendment claim.

180. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31086 by krogercomplete on April 10, 2007 at 11:38 pm

"Actually, it does if the parent, as in this, case predicates his/her defense on religion."

Elaborate please.

"By your logic, the First Amendment will not apply on how many wives a Mormon can marry."

It does not apply unless someone is challenging state action.

"You know that sentence is not true."

Barring abuse of some kind, that is the general idea. No court is going to rule against a parent who makes their minor child go to church (unless they injure them in the process), not even in the 9th circuit.

181. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31079 by krogercomplete on April 10, 2007 at 10:47 pm

"Under current interpretation of the US Constitution, a minor cannot be forced to attend religious service against his/her wish. Mandating religious practice for a minor violates her First Amendment rights (specifically, the second prong known as the Free Exercise Clause)."

The First Amendment does not apply to what parents do with their children. Certainly the government cannot pass a law requiring children to attend religious services against their will, but a child could not take his parents to court and rely on his first amendment rights. The child would likely need to assert some tort claim (i.e. battery), and it is doubtful that any court would find for the child. Parents get to raise their minor children as they see fit. Many states still have immunity rules for intra-family disputes like this that would prevent any such case.

182. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31011 by krogercomplete on April 10, 2007 at 3:37 pm

Seemed pretty mild as far as parental blow-ups go. I was expecting something much more dramatic after glancing at the posts.