Would the United States be Better Today Without the Civil War?

[Diogenes]

[Miles]

.

Well, the Christian god condones slavery so how bad can it be? . . .Right? And to break with one of god's choices would seem to be a misstep, wouldn't it?

.

[Difflugia]

I was raised in one of the 'abolitionist' churches that broke from the Methodist church in 1860 over the issue of slavery. Yet many from the South quoted the Bible to support slavery for financial reasons.

[Purple Knight]

Probably yes it would be a better place since we would not have had the right of secession challenged and disproven. Now this assumes we would no longer have a race-based, government-enforced class structure with Blacks hobbled at the bottom for simply being Black. That would tip things the other way obviously.

But if we didn't - if things were as good for Blacks as this world anyway - then I would much, much rather have the right of secession still enshrined and unchallenged.

America is in turmoil today because there is such a gross difference in fundamental values and imo people with these fundamental differences shouldn't live together. It's why abortion is such a big issue. Maybe I get a girl pregnant and we both think it's a mistake and we do this to save her life from being ruined. Well Billy-Bob over there sees us both as murderers. So when he defends that embryo with force, what of it? He thinks it's a person so he acts rightly. This is why exactly what counts as a person is not something we can disagree on.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #4]
It's sad. Some of it can be understood in terms of one group being anti-factual, at least in terms of an empirical based reality. The absolute nonsense one has to believe to continue to support Trump and his many lies, particularly about the election, boggles the mind.

I don't like abortion. I don't think anyone does, but somehow the ultra right fundamentalists came up with this idea, as if heard from Mt. Sinai, that a single cell, a zygote, an egg fertilized by a sperm cell and having 46 chromosomes in a unique combination is a fully human life that deserves full citizenship because this spec in now a person. I suppose part of their problem is that they find no other clear cut distinction between fully human and not human. Tho' some of them find sperm cells fully human and masturbation a sin.

This drives them to the insanely cruel view that ten year old rape victims should be physically forced to carry the result of rape for nine months and give birth to the rapist's child. And this is justified in the name of 'Christianity.'
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... ape-victim

I think this is EXACTLY the kind of cruelty and hypocrisy Jesus had in mind when he skewered the Pharisees with their insistence on the letter of the law while defying the spirit of it. They'd have a ten year old girl, a rape victim, carry the rapist's child to term because their legalism is more important to them than the little girl. I am convinced that for many the agenda is control not ethics, just as rape is about control not sex.

[Purple Knight]

I don't like abortion. I don't think anyone does, but somehow the ultra right fundamentalists came up with this idea, as if heard from Mt. Sinai, that a single cell, a zygote, an egg fertilized by a sperm cell and having 46 chromosomes in a unique combination is a fully human life that deserves full citizenship because this spec in now a person.

I have a different distinction, but you're right that it's not as clear. I judge based on sentience and I not only admit that these are muddier waters, but I will even admit that this fundamentalist's insistence that a zygote has full rights because it has a unique set of human genes is no worse than my insistence that it isn't. Why? Because we're both drawing a line based on our own values which should absolutely not be forced on the other person.

That's why we can't live together.

This drives them to the insanely cruel view that ten year old rape victims should be physically forced to carry the result of rape for nine months and give birth to the rapist's child. And this is justified in the name of 'Christianity.'

I think this is EXACTLY the kind of cruelty and hypocrisy Jesus had in mind when he skewered the Pharisees with their insistence on the letter of the law while defying the spirit of it. They'd have a ten year old girl, a rape victim, carry the rapist's child to term because their legalism is more important to them than the little girl. I am convinced that for many the agenda is control not ethics, just as rape is about control not sex.

Well what if it had nothing to do with Christianity? Ultimately, if someone asks me why enough times, I'm going to have to stand on an I Believe, just like they do. They believe the fetus has rights. I believe it doesn't. So of course that case looks barbaric to me, just like me wanting to save the girl from that by killing the baby looks barbaric to them.

I don't even think newborn babies are people; they seem to me to be reflex machines until they get to be about a month or so old. And if we were just in the wild and some mother had killed her newborn, and it was clear to me that it wasn't yet at that stage where it begins looking at things, I would defend her from a mob that sought to punish her for full-blown murder, especially if that sentence was death. But...

1) We're not in the wild and there's no good reason to kill your baby when there are others who want it and

2) We live in a civilisation of lax punishments that force compromise
(For example, they won't be coming to kill her; she'll get 5 years in jail or something. And then I have to assess, how bad is this wrong I'm allowing, compared to what will happen if I defend her? And of course I tally that and come to the conclusion that I ought not do so.)

But that's the pernicious nature of endless compromise necessary for a pluralistic society that wants all moral values treated equally. The right answer is always just to let the status quo win, even if you disagree. And a society should not be built upon standing down when you disagree, rather than standing up for what is right. But this is exactly how a pluralistic society has to be built, because we invite people who disagree and we think that somehow makes a society better. It doesn't, because now everybody has to follow laws they think are wrong.

This is where I think the right of secession is absolutely necessary.
Most of us don't think animals have full rights. Some people do. They need to secede.
Most of us don't think terrorism is justified. Some do. Some think our society is that bad. They should secede.

The world really should be for everyone. But part of that is everyone having a place to have their values respected. And no legal system can respect opposite values, such as, that embryo is a person with full rights, and the opposite value of no it isn't.

I am convinced that for many the agenda is control not ethics, just as rape is about control not sex.

I agree with you. Not only this but I think about 95% of those who bring up morality in any case are doing it as a dominance behaviour and nothing more. But what about the people doing it because they believe the zygote has full rights? The girl is only in focus for me because I believe it doesn't.

[RIP]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #1]

That is an impossible question to address. One could ask, would America be better off today without the Revolutionary War?

Whether one is 'better off' or not is not really the question. Is one, north or south, right and in accordance to God is the question.

And, if you say, well, the South lost the War Between The States, so that must be of God. OK. And Jesus Christ was crucified and killed as a criminal. And that was of God also.

Rip