I thought it might be enlightening for some to understand evangelicals they are a changing. This article in the NYT is a good overview of a movement I cursorily am a part in a very minimalist way. However, I do get annoyed when some on the board are fixated on the most right wing of the evangelical movement oblivious to how some of us have differing views from the Republican party on issues ranging from immigration to global warming. By the way Scott McKnight will be at my church in the Fall so this is how this article made it onto my radar screen.
By the way for the more conservative evangelicals on the board you would be wrong to label me or others in this movement "emergent". I'm not. Many others are not. Though I know Brian Maclaren I don't agree with him on many matters. Sometimes Brian and others in the emergent movement sound more like early 20th century liberals than evangelicals. McKnight is more my cup of tea embracing discipleship in an anabaptist way that, though I reject the tradition's pacifism and anti-government involvement, more closely parallels first century Christianity IMO.
Hope this gives some pause because I'm starting to get irritated with evangelical stereotyping. I'm respectful of persons of faith and no faith on this board and don't believe I've ever pigeon holed any faith group or atheists. Seems fair to expect the same for my tradition.
I know this moved on since my Comment, but I wanted to add that I thought the answ to what is Evangelical is sort of interesting. Having grown up with The Great Comission in mind, it never occurred to me that there would be any Christians out there who wouldn't want to spread the word. That's just a given where I'm from. That being said, I'm an Evangelical.
Still don't get the born again Christian. To be a Christian you have to believe that, so why call it out specifically?
Posted on 12/11 8:08 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Brain13: I know this moved on since my Comment, but I wanted to add that I thought the answ to what is Evangelical is sort of interesting. Having grown up with The Great Comission in mind, it never occurred to me that there would be any Christians out there who wouldn't want to spread the word. That's just a given where I'm from. That being said, I'm an Evangelical.
Still don't get the born again Christian. To be a Christian you have to believe that, so why call it out specifically?
Brain you've got a point. When "Born Again" came into vogue to describe Evangelicals it was during a period when many main/old line denominations had lost their evangelistic zeal. Many within denominations such as Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian had been baptized as infants and declared/were Christians by that act but had never been challenged to believe in Christ personally. As a result a movement began challenging those who had never declared their belief in Christ to do so--to be "Born Again." This movement was then popularized by the presidency of Jimmy Carter who as a Baptist declared himself born again and by Chuck Colson who while a baptized Christian but with little fervor wrote of his "conversion" experience in a book entitled "Born Again".
The reason this post is so confusing is that I'm seeking to be respectful of those traditions that do not make a conscious conversion experience, being born again, necessary to declaring oneself a Christian.
Posted on 12/12 7:42 AM | IP: Logged
Isn't that a Tony Jones book? I think this topic is awesome but can't engage on it right now.
Posted on 12/10 8:56 PM | IP: Logged
That was a really intelligently-written article with lots of info, so thanks for posting.
Question: What does "evangelical" mean to you? My wife actually taught at a school with that word in its title, but I've always struggled with what is meant by it. From what I gather, it's sort of a way of segregating out a certain brand of Christian, one who is Protestant and tends to be more conservative, but not necessarily (hence the article).
My question arises because I see the word tossed around all the time in the media to describe people like me or my friends, but I've never once heard the word used in a church setting. We don't call ourselves Evangelical. When I was younger, for the longest time I thought it described a particular denomination, but I don't think it does.
I have this same problem with "born again Christian." Is a BAC any different than a regular Christian, and why is it almost always used to describe baseball players? Does anyone else notice that?
Posted on 12/10 8:11 AM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by Brain13: That was a really intelligently-written article with lots of info, so thanks for posting.
Question: What does "evangelical" mean to you? My wife actually taught at a school with that word in its title, but I've always struggled with what is meant by it. From what I gather, it's sort of a way of segregating out a certain brand of Christian, one who is Protestant and tends to be more conservative, but not necessarily (hence the article).
My question arises because I see the word tossed around all the time in the media to describe people like me or my friends, but I've never once heard the word used in a church setting. We don't call ourselves Evangelical. When I was younger, for the longest time I thought it described a particular denomination, but I don't think it does.
I have this same problem with "born again Christian." Is a BAC any different than a regular Christian, and why is it almost always used to describe baseball players? Does anyone else notice that?
Hey Brain13 here's Leith Anderson's, past president of the National Association of Evangelicals, short definition of Evangelical:
"My short definition of an evangelical is someone who takes the Bible seriously and believes in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord."
My personal answer to the question would take into account Anderson's response but it would also include accepting Jesus as uniquely the "way" to salvation and unashamedly proclaiming Him as such to the world equally through word and action.
This post was edited on 12/10 11:02 AM by vadore
Posted on 12/10 10:28 AM | IP: Logged
Evangelical simply means a Christian who believes they have a responsibility to share the Gospel(Good News) of Jesus Christ to others. Many Christian denominations openly consider themselves Evangelical, it's not a denomination in and of itself. Others are Evangelical in beliefs and actions, but have distanced themselves from the term Evangelical.And there are others who have given up the belief Christians should evangelize at all. The former tend to be more conservative than the latter. A deeper investigation would find the denominations that do not evangelize also distance themselves from most other issues that cause controversy. Their main focus tends to be an effort to offend no one in the hope of increasing their strength. If you do see the word Evangelical in the name of a denomination, that typically means that denomination has divided into two groups at some point over the issue of evangelism. The movement that vadore linked the article about is an effort by many churches who find themselves caught in the middle of the battle between evangelicals who have embraced the Republican party and who many believe have strayed from the core teachings of Christ and those who have gone in the other direction but also abandoned the teachings of Christ to proclaim the Gospel to others.
As for being a Born Again Christian, part of the Gospel message is that you must be Born Again to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. So a part of proclaiming the Gospel is letting others know they must be born again to be saved.
This post was edited on 12/10 9:42 AM by mhdore
Posted on 12/10 9:41 AM | IP: Logged
mhdore that's a pretty good analysis of the movement. Why I posted the article is that some on the board equate Evangelicals with being anti-science, right wing political extremists, and, this is not too strong, insensitive cretins when it comes to persons of other faiths or no faith. Rarely does anyone on the board associate Evangelical with those churches who have abandoned the uniqueness of Christ as the path to salvation, liberal political views, or political correctness masking as politeness. My intent here is to say there is a move afoot in the culture by many Evangelicals not to be "new" Evangelicals but Evangelicals in the tradition of Wilberforce, Lewis, Polkinghorne, and others who are not intellectual ludites but are serious in their faith, in their thinking, in their compassion but who will not apologize for the Christ of the Cross and the empty tomb and the salvation offered by "believing" in Him. Stereotyping of Evangelicals and arguments aimed at Evangelical straw men just seem to me lame and a little push back is in order.
Those who wish to make fun of the Joel Osteens, Pat Robertsons, and the like feel free so do most Evangelicals do so as well. But if you're going to paint us by the worst examples of the movement then don't complain if Evangelicals define you by Ayn Rands, Madeline Murray O'Hairs, or Dr. Kevorkians of the world. Both sides have better representatives and those should be at the center of conversations of a community with so many very smart folks.
Posted on 12/10 10:20 AM | IP: Logged
VA, I'm all for learning more about others and I know this thread was directed at me. I'm also all for people being able to define their own beliefs (e.g., I'm steadfast in my defense of the fact that most people have an incorrect definition of atheist -- it's not a belief that god does not exist but the lack of a belief that god exists... gnosticism is required for gnostic atheism).
That said, the article tells me little I didn't already know. No group of individuals in homogenous and the "New Evangelical" movement seems to confirm a lot of my concerns regarding the right wing Evangelical bloc (I'll try to be good about focusing on the right wing element from hereon out). That they put out a manifesto rejecting the push toward theocracy from the right wing Evangelicals tells me that my concerns regarding the Bachmann and Perry types is well founded.
Nor do I believe Evangelicals are evil. Certainly there are individuals of all faiths and no faith who are innately selfish or even evil, but being Evangelical doesn't increase that. However, the right wing Evangelical movement has been pushing some elements that I believe are evils -- notably in the push to theocracy the new Evangelicals are trying to combat. I do think it is not unreasonable to assume that a push to theocracy would be influenced greatly by the evangelizing commandment of Evangelical theology.
In any respect, I commend the new Evangelicals for trying to win back the good name of Evangelicals from the right wing Evangelicals. The best way to combat stereotypes is to a) educate those who perceive the stereotype to be true and b) if the stereotype has merit, try to combat the root causes of that meritorious stereotype. Looks like the new Evangelicals are partaking in both a) and b)... as well as c) tacking a "new" in front of the name.
Originally posted by vadore: But if you're going to paint us by the worst examples of the movement then don't complain if Evangelicals define you by Ayn Rands, Madeline Murray O'Hairs, or Dr. Kevorkians of the world.
As for the above sentence, I'm not sure if you're intending to be critical of me or if you're joking.
First, while there is a legitimate movement to maintain a secular government that is neutral regarding religion. I support that and would consider myself a part of that movement; however, I don't believe you can define that as an atheist movement... nor can you really say there is an atheist movement.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. That's not a unifying element in any regard. I don't share any sort of characteristics/normative beliefs/ideologies with another atheist by virtue of my lack of belief in a deity (other than the fact that we don't believe in a god). To say otherwise would be to indicate that you and I are part of a movement or belief system because neither of us believe in unicorns or faeries -- or if neither of us believe in a evolution (to provide an example in which the disbelieved thing is almost certainly true).
Although many atheists share characteristics, they do not by virtue of their atheism. Take, for example, Soviet atheists who replace deities with the state and religion with communism. I would gather I'd have more in common with theists than Soviets. I do think that free thinkers, as a subset of atheists, tend to have shared characteristics in many areas, but not all atheists are freethinkers. The same could be said for secular humanists. But atheism is not a movement or a unifying characteristic.
As a second point, I find it interesting that you point to An Rand, Madelyn Murray OHair and Jack Kevorkian as three examples of "bad" atheists.
I tend to disagree with Rand on the simplicity of her support of Laissez Faire societies and, though I've never read her books, I understand her fiction writing is quite dull. That said, she is a highly influential individual who has contributed to the intellectual discussion of how society should operate. One doesn't have to be right or popular to have an important role. Yes, I feel Rand philosophy is misguided and I feel like she's worshiped by the Tea Partiers in a zombie-like way, but as an individual she's hardly someone to be embarrassed of. Furthermore, her atheism does not define her and her philosophy. While one might argue that Laissez Faire is anachronistic with Christianity, but I would point to the modern GOP as an example of that not being the case.
OHair is a legitimate American hero who peacefully fought within the American system for both the Constitution and for the rights of minorities (and, thereby, all Americans). She did so in the face of incredibly strong opposition and death threats. She built an important mechanism for the protection of religious rights that believers and atheists both enjoy. Certainly her atheism defines her as an individual, but her atheism was not required for activism -- in fact, many civil liberties advocates who battle on the importance of separation of church and state are religious.
Finally, Jack Kevorkian is an individual I regard to be a true modern American hero. I'm a proud supporter of the Dying with Dignity movement (formerly the Hemlock Society). What right does the state have to define what people may do with their bodies? Kevorkian exposed the most extreme and abhorrent examples of state meddling by heavily documented his actions to help end the pain of those individuals withering away with some of the most damaging and painful conditions. He helped escort these poor individuals from this world and from the incessant pain of degenerative conditions. That Kevorkian was punished at all is something every American should be ashamed of. There are civilized societies in this world where people can make a decision that ending their existence can be a better choice than continuing. Unfortunately, we do not live in one of those societies... at least for humans... horses, dogs and cats sometimes have things a bit better than we do.
In any respect, my belief sets and lack of religion do not make me a part of a movement with or in any way tangibly connected to Rand, O'Hair or Kevorkian, but I can damn well agree that I would be proud to stand next to any of the three. In reality, my family and life story has, in fact, more in connection with Pat Robertson (quite directly, in fact), which is something that brings my family great shame.
Posted on 12/11 2:38 PM | IP: Logged
VA, I'm all for learning more about others and I know this thread was directed at me. I'm also all for people being able to define their own beliefs (e.g., I'm steadfast in my defense of the fact that most people have an incorrect definition of atheist -- it's not a belief that god does not exist but the lack of a belief that god exists... gnosticism is required for gnostic atheism).
NYD I get where you’re coming from here. Yet, while “agnostic atheism” may be an appropriate label for your inability to “know” there is no God in terms of assertiveness you probably are a better fit for “New atheist.” The Wiki definition of New Atheism is pretty accurate IMO:
New Atheism is the name given to a movement among some early-21st-century atheist writers who have advocated the view that "religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticized, and exposed by rational argument wherever its influence arises."[1] New atheists argue that recent scientific advancements demand a less accommodating attitude toward religion, superstition, and religious fanaticism than had traditionally been extended by many secularists.[citation needed] The movement is commonly associated with Richard Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Victor J. Stenger. Several best-selling books by these authors, published between 2004 and 2007, form the basis for much of the discussion of New Atheism.[2]
Obviously how you choose to define yourself is your call. Yet, even in this post I think it’s hard to make the argument you are passive in your atheism. No problem with that but you’re self assured enough in your knowledge there is no God to push the argument. But if you prefer the self descriptor “agnostic atheist” that’s fine by me but in entering into dialogue with you on this subject I find approaching your arguments as a “new atheist more helpful.”
That said, the article tells me little I didn't already know. No group of individuals in homogenous and the "New Evangelical" movement seems to confirm a lot of my concerns regarding the right wing Evangelical bloc (I'll try to be good about focusing on the right wing element from hereon out). That they put out a manifesto rejecting the push toward theocracy from the right wing Evangelicals tells me that my concerns regarding the Bachmann and Perry types is well founded.
NYD my issue is not with your not being knowledgeable of the Evangelical stream of which I’m a part but in your painting, here I’ll give you the benefit of believing you do so unintentionally, Evangelicals in such a way that others on the site might not know Perry and Bachman don’t represent the majority of Evangelicals. Perry, Bachman, and others reflect the views of a highly influential group of conservative to reactionary segment of Evangelicals who are a part of the Republican base. This group’s influence wanes in the general election vote thought their influence is still felt strongly due to their activism.
Nor do I believe Evangelicals are evil. Certainly there are individuals of all faiths and no faith who are innately selfish or even evil, but being Evangelical doesn't increase that. However, the right wing Evangelical movement has been pushing some elements that I believe are evils -- notably in the push to theocracy the new Evangelicals are trying to combat. I do think it is not unreasonable to assume that a push to theocracy would be influenced greatly by the evangelizing commandment of Evangelical theology.
Glad to hear you don’t believe Evangelicals are evil. In kind let me say neither do I believe atheists are evil. However, the number of Evangelicals who would desire to establish a theocracy in this country is infinitesimally small and these tend to be looked askance at by the vast majority of Evangelicals new or old. Additionally, evangelizing for the sake of converting people to a political ideology is not evangelism. The only so persons I can think of right off the top of my head would evangelize for such a purpose are white supremacists not Evangelicals. Your fear of Evangelicals being intent to establish a theocracy is at best unwarranted and at worst a scare tactic.
Also, I don’t believe, just to be clear, most atheists want to remove religion from the public square. I guess I could call those who do evil but while I may view their project as evil most if not all who would want such are simply misguided.
In any respect, I commend the new Evangelicals for trying to win back the good name of Evangelicals from the right wing Evangelicals. The best way to combat stereotypes is to a) educate those who perceive the stereotype to be true and b) if the stereotype has merit, try to combat the root causes of that meritorious stereotype. Looks like the new Evangelicals are partaking in both a) and b)... as well as c) tacking a "new" in front of the name.
I think you’re for the most part on target here. However, I believe the New Evangelicals have in first position of their intent getting Evangelicals back to their roots as I mentioned of being a movement embracing the likes of William Wilberforce, C.S. Lewis, and even the non-political Billy Graham.
Originally posted by vadore: But if you're going to paint us by the worst examples of the movement then don't complain if Evangelicals define you by Ayn Rands, Madeline Murray O'Hairs, or Dr. Kevorkians of the world.
As for the above sentence, I'm not sure if you're intending to be critical of me or if you're joking.
I’m not attempting to either joke or be critical though seeing in any of these three heroes is a stretch for me. In my estimation they represent the personal extreme of atheists just as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or R.J. Rushdoony represent personal extremes in Evangelicalism. What they all have in common with the folks I mentioned above are significant followings but being extremists in legitimate causes.
First, while there is a legitimate movement to maintain a secular government that is neutral regarding religion. I support that and would consider myself a part of that movement; however, I don't believe you can define that as an atheist movement... nor can you really say there is an atheist movement.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. That's not a unifying element in any regard. I don't share any sort of characteristics/normative beliefs/ideologies with another atheist by virtue of my lack of belief in a deity (other than the fact that we don't believe in a god). To say otherwise would be to indicate that you and I are part of a movement or belief system because neither of us believe in unicorns or faeries -- or if neither of us believe in a evolution (to provide an example in which the disbelieved thing is almost certainly true).
Although many atheists share characteristics, they do not by virtue of their atheism. Take, for example, Soviet atheists who replace deities with the state and religion with communism. I would gather I'd have more in common with theists than Soviets. I do think that free thinkers, as a subset of atheists, tend to have shared characteristics in many areas, but not all atheists are freethinkers. The same could be said for secular humanists. But atheism is not a movement or a unifying characteristic.
You’re point is well taken, however, with the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al. there has come to be a unifying element in writings, common political cause, and even, according to another friend who is an atheist “conventions” among atheists. Don’t begrudge atheists this but to say there is no unifying thread I think is a stretch.
As a second point, I find it interesting that you point to An Rand, Madelyn Murray OHair and Jack Kevorkian as three examples of "bad" atheists.
I tend to disagree with Rand on the simplicity of her support of Laissez Faire societies and, though I've never read her books, I understand her fiction writing is quite dull. That said, she is a highly influential individual who has contributed to the intellectual discussion of how society should operate. One doesn't have to be right or popular to have an important role. Yes, I feel Rand philosophy is misguided and I feel like she's worshiped by the Tea Partiers in a zombie-like way, but as an individual she's hardly someone to be embarrassed of. Furthermore, her atheism does not define her and her philosophy. While one might argue that Laissez Faire is anachronistic with Christianity, but I would point to the modern GOP as an example of that not being the case.
Come now you can’t have it both ways. Either the GOP is moving toward an objectivist ideology loosening its ties with Evangelicalism or a bunch of crazy Rushdoony(ites) seeking to establish Washington as the new Geneva. I really don’t believe the Republican party is doing either but just saying. What I do believe is that Rand’s philosophy from a Christian perspective is as morally bankrupt as she was due to her own narcissistic individualism projected outward as Objectivism. If you want to defend her have at it. I would no more defend her regardless of influence than Pat Robertson because of his influence on politics in the 80’s.
OHair is a legitimate American hero who peacefully fought within the American system for both the Constitution and for the rights of minorities (and, thereby, all Americans). She did so in the face of incredibly strong opposition and death threats. She built an important mechanism for the protection of religious rights that believers and atheists both enjoy. Certainly her atheism defines her as an individual, but her atheism was not required for activism -- in fact, many civil liberties advocates who battle on the importance of separation of church and state are religious.
OHair was a bit of a crazy and we both know that. Do you really want to call a one time speechwriter for Larry Flynt a “legitimate American Hero.” Rosa Parks Ms. O’Hair was not. The legitimate American heroes were the supreme court justices who upheld the legitimate boundaries between church and state. I know more wanted my children to be forced to say a non-Christian prayer in school than you would want to have your child say a Christian prayer. That’s fair.
Finally, Jack Kevorkian is an individual I regard to be a true modern American hero. I'm a proud supporter of the Dying with Dignity movement (formerly the Hemlock Society). What right does the state have to define what people may do with their bodies? Kevorkian exposed the most extreme and abhorrent examples of state meddling by heavily documented his actions to help end the pain of those individuals withering away with some of the most damaging and painful conditions. He helped escort these poor individuals from this world and from the incessant pain of degenerative conditions. That Kevorkian was punished at all is something every American should be ashamed of. There are civilized societies in this world where people can make a decision that ending their existence can be a better choice than continuing. Unfortunately, we do not live in one of those societies... at least for humans... horses, dogs and cats sometimes have things a bit better than we do.
Dr. Kevorkian was no more right than were the parents of Terry Shivo. Kevorkian took matters into his own hands as did, I believe, Terry Shivo’s parents?one inflicting death and the other precluding death. Just so you know I believe the right to die should be legalized but additionally I believe the state has a right to determine just how and when such a freedom to choose death may occur. Non-regulated mercy killings have so much potential for harm/evil its not even worth arguing. Since, I’m not a Libertarian I see the state/society’s interest in precluding the Kevorkians.
In any respect, my belief sets and lack of religion do not make me a part of a movement with or in any way tangibly connected to Rand, O'Hair or Kevorkian, but I can damn well agree that I would be proud to stand next to any of the three. In reality, my family and life story has, in fact, more in connection with Pat Robertson (quite directly, in fact), which is something that brings my family great shame.
Unfortunately NYD I just don’t agree your belief sets don’t make you a part of a movement. No more than I can simply brush aside the excesses of Christians, whose faith, can you brush aside excesses of atheists. True, neither of us has to fully own the actions on the part of the others but the John Donne got it right, “No man is an island.” We live in community and solidarity with those who share our beliefs and have a responsibility to seek to change the excesses of our ideological or theological kin?not just deny relationship as a free agent devoid of responsibility for others.
By the way appreciate the response and the exchange. I’ll avoid the “I love you” make it feel all better crap but do know I consider you a friend and someone I respect enough to challenge and respond to on a matter such as this. Blessings. Or if you prefer all the best.
Posted on 12/11 4:06 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by vadore: NYD I get where you’re coming from here. Yet, while “agnostic atheism” may be an appropriate label for your inability to “know” there is no God in terms of assertiveness you probably are a better fit for “New atheist.”
I most certainly would say I'm a part of the "New Atheists", with one caveat... I only feel religion stifles when it threatens a secular public society (meaning when it invades government or our educational system in a manner that limits the rights of citizens). I most certainly am loud and proud of my atheism because I've been inspired to do so by folks like Dan Dennett. That said, I don't agree that religion is always harmful and no longer capable of good (which I think is a position that Sam Harris is getting close to and Richard Dawkins is at).
My atheism is not the driving force toward my being a new atheist though. It is a necessary but insufficient component. My public mindedness and political interest are the driving forces there.
In fact, in most cases atheism never exceeds a necessary but insufficient element of the belief sets of atheists. Atheism does not comprise a belief set. I would consider myself a utilitarian and a secular humanist as a matter of who I am. I am an atheist as to the matter of who I am NOT.
Originally posted by vadore: NYD my issue is ...in your painting... Evangelicals in such a way that others on the site might not know Perry and Bachman don’t represent the majority of Evangelicals. Perry, Bachman, and others reflect the views of a highly influential group of conservative to reactionary segment of Evangelicals who are a part of the Republican base. This group’s influence wanes in the general election vote thought their influence is still felt strongly due to their activism.
It is the responsibility of a group of people to disclaim and excise their own cancerous elements. I'm glad to see that the New Evangelicals are trying to do this. But abandoning the primaries to them is not a positive answer if they are able to shape the platform of the GOP -- though that is more an issue for the GOP than the Evangelical community.
Ultimately, until the public face of the Evangelical community is confronted, the community will continue to be defined by folks like Perry and Bachmann. I don't think anyone implies that Evangelicals are homogenous, and if it appears that I've said that, I apologize.
Originally posted by vadore: Your fear of Evangelicals being intent to establish a theocracy is at best unwarranted and at worst a scare tactic.
If you've watched Perry and Bachmann (and, indeed, Herman Cain and Ron Paul, for that matter) and feel that there is not justification for a belief that there is a threat of theocracy... well, I just don't know. For further reference, see Christian Exodus.
Originally posted by vadore: In my estimation they represent the personal extreme of atheists just as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, or R.J. Rushdoony represent personal extremes in Evangelicalism.
As I stated above, the only person of the three who has atheism as a central component of who they are is O'Hair. You might say that atheism could be a necessary but insufficient element of Rand's political philosophy, but she is not defined by her atheism. Further, if you believe Kevorkian could only do what he did as an atheist, I ask whether or not any Christian has put down a dog or a cat in pain? Or a horse that has broken its leg. I know the bible would view a dog differently, but the concept is not dissimilar. You may not like Rand or Kevorkian, but they do not represent nor are they defined by atheism.
Originally posted by vadore: You’re point is well taken, however, with the writings of Dawkins, Hitchens, et. al. there has come to be a unifying element in writings, common political cause, and even, according to another friend who is an atheist “conventions” among atheists. Don’t begrudge atheists this but to say there is no unifying thread I think is a stretch.
I agree, but this is a movement which does not encompass all atheists. This is more of a "freedom from religion" movement. Funny how this conversation has flipped from you getting peeved at my over-simplifying and now the cards have flipped. :)
Originally posted by vadore: Dr. Kevorkian was no more right than were the parents of Terry Shivo. Kevorkian took matters into his own hands as did, I believe, Terry Shivo’s parents?one inflicting death and the other precluding death. Just so you know I believe the right to die should be legalized but additionally I believe the state has a right to determine just how and when such a freedom to choose death may occur. Non-regulated mercy killings have so much potential for harm/evil its not even worth arguing. Since, I’m not a Libertarian I see the state/society’s interest in precluding the Kevorkians.
Umm... no. Kevorkian did not make the choice for his patients. He only assisted patients who were capable of clearly and definitively stating their desires to end their pain through suicide. Terry Schiavo lacked the capacity to do so and that conversation was entirely different than the situation with Kevorkian's patients. I am not going back to check this, but my recollection and belief is that Kevorkian NEVER treated a patient who could not clearly express their wishes. As a member of a family with Alzheimer's in our history, I'm very cognizant of this as my mother is insistent on moving to Switzerland while coherent if she ever develops the condition. I'm in charge of the family affairs instead of my brother and sister specifically because my mother knows I will ensure her wishes are fulfilled.
As for your comments on Rand, I'm not a supporter of her. You don't have to support in order to agree that someone contributed to the dialogue. And on O'Hair, sure she was a bit crazy. You'd have to be to intentionally fight for something that made you the most hated woman in America. Speechwriting for Larry Flynt is not in and of itself a disgrace... though I'm not aware of an speeches by Flynt that are memorable, so clearly she wasn't very good at it.
Again though, my point is not that I'm not a part of the New Atheist movement, the Utilitarian socio-political belief set or the Secular Humanist community. It's that being an atheist does not make me a part of a community or people set any more than not believing in Leprechauns makes me a loyal customer of Lucky Charms. People are not defined by being an atheist in that way. Being a Christian or Muslim (etc.) has a definitive impact on a person's being in a way that atheism cannot (but that utilitarianism or secular humanism can).
And no, I don't get mad at people for saying bless you when I sneeze.
Posted on 12/11 5:15 PM | IP: Logged
I'll give you the last word except to post an article Dr. Death that appeared in the Economist. Yet, also I would say to you that prolonging a person's life by legal means when the person who was is disappearing is hard to defend. Christians may, on a theological basis, embrace suffering as meaningful but I would reject imposing what is a theological belief on others. By the way the "Blessings" statement was not in anyway meant to be snarky but at the same time wanted to be respectful.
My grandmother died after 15 years of Alzheimer's and her life was ridiculously extended through life saving measures that extended her non-existence. In one cases, this was done over the objections of our family -- or so my mother has informed me (I don't quite understand how this is possible, which makes me believe that perhaps it was over my mother's objections, but not my grandfather's). In any respect, it was a religious institution (a Baptist nursing home which was, by all rights, a spectacular place but one which did not exactly embrace an open discussion of end of life decisions).
Anyways, the article on Dr. Death most certainly does not paint him in the most favorable light, but most folks can be painted negatively. On emight argue he fought for the spotlight, but in many ways the spotlight was what the cause needed. He could be portrayed as thumbing his nose at prosecutors when, in fact, he did so only through continuing to help patients who desired to end their existence on their own terms.
I will say I was surprised to hear that less than a third of his patients were in pain, but I remember that certain conditions would not qualify as generating pain. For example, the devastation of Alzheimer's would likely never result in "pain" and something like MS might not result in pain until later courses.
The issue of dying with dignity is something that is obviously very personal to me. I readily admit that where a patient cannot make a conscious choice for themselves, the complexity of the situation grows exponentially. I don't know that anyone has the answer there. Even in the case of Terry Schiavo, the case was decided not on whether or not the husband had the right and ability to make the decision as medical proxy, but on whether or not Schiavo was brain dead. Had she had the opportunity in any way for a recovery, she likely would have continued to be fed (as I recall, she did not even have so much as a DNR -- though her husband as proxy would have had that authority, just not the removal of feeding).
I don't know that you have to be a libertarian to support the idea that a person should have control over their own body. I'm guessing the concept might make some anti-choice advocates queasy, but outside of that limited scenario, people should have the right to control their own person under most all circumstances (particularly where they do not threaten the well-being of others).
Kevorkian may not have been warm and fuzzy when it came to PR, but the man fought for this very right. He did so at personal cost and he should be thanked for it. I guarantee you his patients all thanked him for his assistance.
PS. I think we can dispose of any pretense that we need to be sensitive about stuff like the blessing thing. I know quite well that you wouldn't say something for the purpose of insulting me and I'd hope you could say the same about me. After all, we're internet message board debate friends. :)
This post was edited on 12/11 10:29 PM by NewYorkDore
Posted on 12/11 10:27 PM | IP: Logged
Originally posted by NewYorkDore: My grandmother died after 15 years of Alzheimer's and her life was ridiculously extended through life saving measures that extended her non-existence. In one cases, this was done over the objections of our family -- or so my mother has informed me (I don't quite understand how this is possible, which makes me believe that perhaps it was over my mother's objections, but not my grandfather's). In any respect, it was a religious institution (a Baptist nursing home which was, by all rights, a spectacular place but one which did not exactly embrace an open discussion of end of life decisions).
Anyways, the article on Dr. Death most certainly does not paint him in the most favorable light, but most folks can be painted negatively. On emight argue he fought for the spotlight, but in many ways the spotlight was what the cause needed. He could be portrayed as thumbing his nose at prosecutors when, in fact, he did so only through continuing to help patients who desired to end their existence on their own terms.
I will say I was surprised to hear that less than a third of his patients were in pain, but I remember that certain conditions would not qualify as generating pain. For example, the devastation of Alzheimer's would likely never result in "pain" and something like MS might not result in pain until later courses.
The issue of dying with dignity is something that is obviously very personal to me. I readily admit that where a patient cannot make a conscious choice for themselves, the complexity of the situation grows exponentially. I don't know that anyone has the answer there. Even in the case of Terry Schiavo, the case was decided not on whether or not the husband had the right and ability to make the decision as medical proxy, but on whether or not Schiavo was brain dead. Had she had the opportunity in any way for a recovery, she likely would have continued to be fed (as I recall, she did not even have so much as a DNR -- though her husband as proxy would have had that authority, just not the removal of feeding).
I don't know that you have to be a libertarian to support the idea that a person should have control over their own body. I'm guessing the concept might make some anti-choice advocates queasy, but outside of that limited scenario, people should have the right to control their own person under most all circumstances (particularly where they do not threaten the well-being of others).
Kevorkian may not have been warm and fuzzy when it came to PR, but the man fought for this very right. He did so at personal cost and he should be thanked for it. I guarantee you his patients all thanked him for his assistance.
PS. I think we can dispose of any pretense that we need to be sensitive about stuff like the blessing thing. I know quite well that you wouldn't say something for the purpose of insulting me and I'd hope you could say the same about me. After all, we're internet message board debate friends. :)
This post was edited on 12/11 10:29 PM by NewYorkDore
First, NYD I sympathize with the pain you must have felt regarding your grandmother. But I do think its a false linkage to see the Baptist/Christian's nursing home's reticence to help end her life as in any way intentionally inhumane. My hunch is that they were being observant of legalities since it appears there were no clear directives and health care power of attorney is not mentioned in your post. This is why my wife and I have as a matter of Christian faith that Heaven is our eternal home and not a vegetative state in a nursing home health care power of attorney and end of life directives. With your grandmother it appears to me law not theology probably was the deciding factor in what I agree was a horrific decision.
While you would declare Kevorkian an American hero many in the right to death movement would suggest Kevorkian set back the movement. I agree with that assessment. Kevorkian's publicity seeking, self-conscious flaunting of laws, and not being more attuned to those who sought his help but were borderline candidates for his "services" made others campaigning for the right to die with dignity seem extremist when they were not. May surprise you to know I keep on file at my church for a few members copies of their notarized living wills so as to avoid confusion about their wishes.
Obviously one does not need to be libertarian to support the idea of control over the body. However, again, I believe the state/community has a right to regulate assisted suicide to insure the right to die is exercised by a person on their own terms and in their right mind. Nothing like standing in a suicide victim's pool of blood and seeing the family dog's blood in its kennel to make one mindful of that fact. (This not to mention the intense after care needed by family members). Which was my experience last year. I believe folks have the right to die with dignity but to paraphrase Clinton--such times while legal should be rare and thoughtfully made. Life is too important to be snuffed out willy nilly which I know you're not suggesting but could happen without government/community oversight.
Obviously this is very personal for you as it is for many. Yet, the complexity of the issue demands dialogue issuing in law, which while probably never achieving perfection or consensus, is balanced.
By the way no pretense on my part in being sensitive to the possibility of offending. I learned along time ago to debate with only those I respect and when doing so to go the extra-mile to insure civility. I find phrases such as "with all due respect" and "my right honorable friend/colleague" to be pretense. I would never use either in our message board debate since I both respect you and consider you a friend.
This post was edited on 12/12 8:41 AM by vadore
Posted on 12/12 7:34 AM | IP: Logged
VA, just to clarify a point that apparently I didn't make clear --> it's not that the nursing home didn't help her to die, but that they performed life saving treatment to conditions that would have killed her. The prime example of this was the amputation of a toe that had developed gangrene (which would have killed her quickly and relatively painlessly if untreated). And I was too young to recall, so I don't know the full details of whether or not she had a DNR or if my grandfather's wishes (as her HCP) were different from my mom's.
On his impact with the movement, I don't know that he helped or hurt the movement... certainly he hasn't pushed it across any goalline, but for scores of individuals, he is nothing short of a hero because he gave them a safe, humane means of ending their life.
And good to hear about your keeping of the living wills. I do pro bono work with the military doing wills, HCPs and living wills for deploying soldiers. One of the most important of those documents is the statement of wishes regarding end of life choices. People don't always like to think about it, but it's really, really important.
Posted on 12/12 8:39 AM | IP: Logged
Not to belabor the point but, and again I'm hunching, the Nursing home made the decisions it did, such as the amputation of the toe, in order to be in compliance with best practices required for licensure. You are far more aware than me that a nursing home which fails to meet legal standards is subject to legal action. The irony of this whole discussion is that hospitals/nursing homes can provide morphine for pain management while at the same time knowing it is a form of euthanasia inevitably leading to the shut down of organs. So on this point we agree. There's got to be a better way. And while I believe in the sacredness of life and, therefore can not go along with abortion solely on demand or death on demand. Yet, there are those times when painful and death inflicting choices need to be made in order to be both humane and respecting of those created in God's image.
Posted on 12/12 8:51 AM | IP: Logged
VA, the point of contention is not licensure. It's something on which I do not have clarity, but the impression I got was that they performed the amputation without the family's consent (though I'm not 100% sure that's true as it may just have been over my mom's wishes and not my grandfather's, who would have been the HCP). If it was done over the family wishes, that actually would have been a licensure issue, I would think; however, it may not have been because they were acting to "save" the life of the patient. An amputation is obviously an invasive procedure for which consent must be obtained.
Again though, I don't have all the facts here so we're really discussing something which is unverifiable in nature.
Posted on 12/12 10:17 AM | IP: Logged
Excellent article, vadore. I just realized I am a part of a movement that I didn't even know existed.
Yahoo! Sports
