Thank God for the archives at www.gilroydispatch.com. Were it
not for the archives, imagine the moldering stacks of newspapers I
would have to store against the possibility that someone might
accuse me of constructing a strawman argument.
“I have grave issues with her (Bonnie Evans), or anyone, using personal faith to justify public policy.”
~ Lisa Pampuch, Feb. 7
“Lisa Pampuch, in her column of Feb. 7, says that personal faith should not be used as a basis for making laws…. Let us acknowledge that just because a religion or faith has a particular tenet does not mean that that tenet should be barred from being replicated in public policy.”
~ Cynthia Walker, Feb. 10
“I never asserted that ‘just because a religion or faith has a particular tenet means that that tenet should be barred from being replicated in public policy.’ Talk about your strawman arguments.”
~Lisa Pampuch, Feb. 14
Thank God for the archives at www.gilroydispatch.com. Were it not for the archives, imagine the moldering stacks of newspapers I would have to store against the possibility that someone might accuse me of constructing a strawman argument.
At the risk of devolving into he-said, she-said (only in this case it is she-said, she-said: even more confusing), Ms. Pampuch: I never attributed to you what you said I said you asserted. I attributed to you what you said, and made my own statement about the flaw in your statement. No strawman argument.
I hope I am correct in assuming from Ms. Pampuch’s column of Feb. 14 that she has no objection to a tenet of personal faith being replicated in public policy, because if she will grant that, I would like to move on with the argument.
Ms. Pampuch (who is an amazingly articulate woman with a tremendous knowledge base of current events) asked in her first column how one would decide which tenets of personal faith one would choose to replicate in public policy, as some of them contradict each other or are not widely held.
I did not answer this question in my first column because I am under no obligation to, and I had other points to make, and the answer is pretty obvious. One chooses the right ones, as opposed to the wrong ones.
But how can one tell which are right and which are wrong?
One test is how widely held they are. Every people have a prohibition against murder, though some define it a little differently. The Crips, for example, say, “Thou shalt not murder Crips … or else.” The Nazis and certain tribes in Papua New Guinea have a similar, circumscribed view of who can be viewed as a human being, and hence as a victim of murder.
Other groups draw the circle more widely. Jains say one should not kill even insects. Vegans say one should not kill vertebrates. Pacifists say one cannot kill humans even in self-defense or in war. Catholics say one should not kill even condemned criminals.
Catholics and fundamentalists both say one should not murder fetuses. And so forth. Different peoples argue about the details, but pretty much everyone agrees that one should not murder.
Another test is authority. I take Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, to be a better authority on the morality of physician assisted suicide than Dr. Philip Nitschke, Australia’s Kevorkian clone, who, when he was 15, killed his landlord’s dog by slitting the animal’s throat.
Another similar test is outcome, or the by-their-fruits-ye-shall-know-them test. I would not take the Taliban’s advice on how to run a fair and democratic society.
In the same vein, Ms. Pampuch, I would not take the word of Robert Heinlein on matters religious, as he was an atheist. I would not even take the word of the current Supreme Court on matters relating to the Constitution and general welfare, not since Kelo vs. New London. As regards suicide, we have 2000 years of Christianity saying suicide is wrong. We have ancient Rome and shogunate Japan saying that suicide is noble. Which of these societies do you prefer?
In sum, I believe that personal faith is a perfectly legitimate and extremely relevant source for matters of public policy and law. One should take all the data into account. Two thousand years of tradition should not be cast aside because some people think they can make up something better on the basis of – what – their personal beliefs?
