I came across an interview on frontpagemag.com today.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=26769
The interviewee has a lot of interesting points. Among them was

There is no such thing as a universal statement of ethics in Islam.
Muslims are to be treated one way and unbelievers another way.
The closest Islam comes to a universal statement of ethics is that
the entire world must submit to Islam. After Mohammed became
a prophet, he never treated an unbeliever the same as a Muslim. Islam
denies the truth of the Golden Rule.

By the way, this dualistic ethic is the basis for jihad. The ethical system
sets up the unbeliever as less than human and therefore, it is easy to kill,
harm or deceive the unbeliever.

I was wondering about your reaction, based on your universal statement of ethics discussion from a while back.

BTW, this guy says that the dualistic logic that islam uses is the antithesis of western scientific logic, making its system too foreign for many other folks to understand. This seems, in some ways to fit in with a personal theory I played with that their way of life is as different from ours as if they were space aliens, and as such, it would be easier for us to deal with them if they were. Our humanitarian belief system gets in the way because we see them as human. This guy says that they don’t see us as human.

Very perceptive comments.

I chose this forum for exactly the reasons you indicated. In fact, if anyone wants to reprint this article in whole or part, I’m going to allow them to do so without any royalty payment or other compensation to me. (I own the copyright to this material). They just need to contact me through the email address above and I’ll give them written permission to do so. [My email address may be changing soon since Time Warner just took over my cable service from Comcast. If the Comcast email bounces back, I will have an updated email contact through my website http://www.scifi-jackson.com.

I don’t think the hard core pro-abortionists will ever be convinced that terminating a pregnancy means ending a human life. But I believe that there are a great many people out there who are honestly searching for the truth about this matter. They are the ones I want to reach, as well as give those who already understand the true nature of abortion a way to see the wisdom of their views in a broader context.

Take care,
Phil

About half way through this essay, it occurred to me that this was worthy of publishing in the form of a book and I wondered at the fact that it is published in an open forum where it would yield no monetary gain for the author. It was not until I began to read the responses you have made to those who post that I realized that you are truly hungry for an honest debate with a peer on the opposite side. I expect you will find debate from a peer on the opposite side, but it will not be honest. Your examples of the friends who avoided debate by turning off the subject when you presented the questions relating to the morality of allowing the Nazis to go unchallenged are indicative of one thing. They valued your friendship and opinion of them too much to engage in the vapid dishonesty that is necessary to defend against such a conundrum. When an individual is committed to the premise that there is no higher authority than man, truth becomes what ever they say it is. A lie or dishonest argument becomes a tool of convenience that is used without shame and discarded only after it proves to be ineffective. There is no penalty for its use and it is not even necessary to admit to it, at least, not in this life. Make no mistake about it, these issues you argue for so passionately are merely threads in a complex tapestry that represents a spiritual war. I don’t say this to discourage discussion of the issues. I say this to add context to the discussion as we are part of a struggle that God permits for reasons beyond our understanding. It is a struggle between dark and light, good and evil, and the apostle John has told us by way of revelation that the darkness has not and shall not overpower the light. I now understand why you published in this forum. Perhaps someone, even one of your friends who don’t want to talk about it, will be drawn to that light. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

Ken
Valley Lee, MD

If you’re still reading, I’d like to respond to your question of why Christians opposet same sex marriage even though these couples would not have abortions. The issue is that same sex marriage undermines traditional marriage and the unique bond as does pre-marital and extra-marital sex, cohabitation, and easy divorce. In fact, before the push toward same-sex marriage, the same people led the charge to promote “alternative families.” Not content to just destroy the family, they have striven to infiltrate it.

Without the purpose of procreation and raising a family, same sex couples are merely intimate roommates. This, however is not good enough. In Canada, where I live, the present push is for adoption rights and suing churches who won’t perform same sex marriages. As such, it is also about decimating and splitting churches and damaging children.

This does bring us back to the abortion issue. Since many of the most ardent feminists are homosexual, they have no chance of even procreating. A more fitting question is why are these women fighting so hard to have abortion not just legalised, but actively promoted? The answer is the same. Their efforts are self interest geared at undermining religion, the family, and contempt for children which are all the issues that Christians strongly at odds with them over.

You are indeed correct. “State’s Rights” is a sloppy shorthand for state vs. federal power and authority.

It’s kind of like “the White House said”, or “Congress passed a law,” etc. Institutions don’t act or speak, just as states don’t have specific rights the way people do. But if you talk about the power or ability of a state to leave the union, it makes it seem as if it’s a simple calculation of military or political force with no other consideration than “might makes right.” So the term State’s Rights has evolved to suggest mutual obligations and promises on the part of both federal and state authorities.

But if you don’t think about its etymology, you can easily slip into the wrong kind of mindset about the issue.

Good comment.

Phil

Well, I must admit I thought I was prepared for just about any response, but not one that thought that Lincoln had no right to oppose Southern secession.

If you want to get technical, the 1787 Constitutional Convention had no actual authority to nullify the articles of Confederation and create a new federal system of government. Which means that the Bill of Rights technically is illegal, as are the remainder of the Constitution’s provisions. Which means that the inherent “Right to Privacy” that was used to justify legalized abortion is invalid, which means we need to immediately outlaw abortion and return the decision to the individual states. Is this what you were getting at?

Or were you just raising a debating point, and taking it to its logically-relativistic conclusion to offer some kind of rebuttal to my arguments? You see, framing the issue the way you have as a federal intrusion upon the autonomy of the states is the traditional way State’s Rightists have viewed the Civil War. Only those people who actually hold this position never use the term “civil war”. They call it “the war between the states”. This leads me to suspect that you aren’t really offering your actual point of view on this subject, but just looking for a way to chip away at part of the foundation for my position.

If you’d like to take the traditional southern view on the civil war I have no problem. As I said, it only bolsters the argument that the Federal Government has no right to set national abortion policy, since this is an area reserved for the states. I’ll be glad to help you craft your letter to Washington demanding an end to elective abortion. That is, if you actually hold the point of view you professed about federal-state power. I didn’t use your argument because it was a cheap way to make my point. But I do appreciate the support you’ve given for the basic principle that the Federal Government has overstepped its authority on abortion.

As for the Civil War/culture change thoughts I offered, there is much more to understanding the meaning of Clausewitz writings than the simple shorthand phrase he used that “war is politics by other means.” It has to do with the dialectic of rational political calculations, as opposed to the simple opposition of opposing forces. The whole subject of dialectics can be a little tricky if you don’t have any real familiarity with it. Most people who use the term today apply it to Marxist and neo-Marxist philosophers (particularly the French and Italian Marxists of the early 20th century). So be sure you’re focusing on the right body of theory when you delve into it. I highly recommend reading Clausewitz original work if you are intrigued by this subject. When you do, I think you’ll see that I used his precepts exactly as he intended.

I am heartened that you see the need for a “solid moral foundation” before governmental action is taken. Since you and I both agree that subjective opinions are not a good basis for forming moral decisions, the challenge is to find a universal moral principle upon which to base that decision. Since you aren’t clamoring to publicly profess your love for raping and murdering young children, I assume that we can use the moral-code foundation I outlined in my essay … the one that you still haven’t read all the way through. I used it to offer a concrete course of action for opposing Islamo-fascism and to work toward an end to unrestricted elective abortions. I’m glad to have you on board too in support of both of these objectives.

As for what kind of A-Bomb Jesus would drop, I really couldn’t say. Harry Truman, a non-neo-con Democrat, is the only one who actually did that. Twice, as a matter of fact. You’d have to ask him.

Regards,

Phil Jackson