You're A Bad Person And Cal Thomas Likes Jim Carrey Movies About God

I love when commentators try to use movies, mediocre movies even better, to prove a point. The wonderful Cal Thomas in his syndicated column today writes:

"In an age when we think we should be free of burdens -- a notion that contributes to our superficiality and makes us morally obtuse -- getting rid of granny might seem perfectly rational, even defensible. But by doing so, we assume an even greater burden: the role of God in deciding who gets to live and who must die. Anyone who has seen the film "Bruce Almighty" senses how difficult it is to play God."

The work of Jim Carrey can teach so much. For those who have not had the "pleasure" of Bruce Almighty here is the synopsis from IMBD:

"Bruce Nolan, a television reporter in Buffalo, N.Y., is discontented with almost everything in life despite his popularity and the love of his girlfriend Grace. At the end of the worst day of his life, Bruce angrily ridicules and rages against God and God responds. God appears in human form and, endowing Bruce with divine powers, challenges Bruce to take on the big job to see if he can do it any better."

Cal's point is that being god is tough. So don't try. I think that is good advice.

Enough of the jokes. Cal Thomas believes that people who don't believe in god want to kill people. Thomas writes:

"Few from the 'endowed rights' side are saying that a 100-year-old with an inoperable brain tumor should be given extraordinary and expensive care to keep the heart pumping, even after brain waves have gone flat. But there is a big difference between 'letting go' and 'snuffing out.' The unnatural progression for many on the secular left is to see such a person as a 'burden.' In an age when we think we should be free of burdens -- a notion that contributes to our superficiality and makes us morally obtuse -- getting rid of granny might seem perfectly rational, even defensible."

Secularists, as Thomas calls them, would rather "snuff out" older sick people just to be rid of a burden while the "endowed rights" people value life let go of old people. I don’t understand his distinction between letting go and snuffing out. The result is the same only the demonization is different.

Earlier in his essay Thomas asks, “Are we now assigning worth to human life?” I think that is an interesting question. Don’t tell Cal that we have been doing that for years. Stanford economists say it is about $129,000. An interesting conversation of philosophy could be had if you were not talking to someone who believes in god. Thomas says that life has “its own predetermined value, irrespective of race, class, IQ or disability?” That is non-starter in the conversation but also not the point when it comes to health care, the issue that Thomas is trying to address.

The question that needs to be asked is not what is life worth instead what is the priority for scarce health resources worth? Should we distribute the resources to people with dim prognosis such as the “100-year-old with an inoperable brain tumor” or Terry Schiavo at the expense of a sick person with a positive prognosis? That is the question we need to answer. To confuse this important question with ideas about god and the false profundity of “god made us and also makes the rules about our existence” only delays the answers to these questions.

This is an economics issue not a god issue. Even though “it's on the money…In God We Trust” does not mean that god creates the money.

P.S. Cal, please reconcile the contradiction between all life is valuable and the death penalty.

P.S.S. Cal you still ignore suffering of ill people. Why do you do that you big pious lug?

Sphere: Related Content

Hypocrisy And Thoughtlessness The Skillset Of Congressman John Sullivan

At a Tulsa Republican Club event Oklahoma Congressman John Sullivan said:

"This is a scary time in Washington. It's a very frightening time. I see Barack Obama is creating an enemies list of people who oppose this miserable health care plan. I think that's frightening. That's from a guy that can't even show a long-form birth certificate. I think we all ought to be prepared to fight that."

He went on to say,

"Everyone demonizes the other side. We need to all sit down and focus on these vital issues. That's the only way we can address these very, very tough issues."

The way to stop demonizing people is to demonize people then tell us how demonizing people does not accomplish anything. It sounds as if Sarah Palin wrote this speech for the congressman.
Sphere: Related Content

“OKLAHOMA WHERE THE HYPOCRISY COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAINS.”

David Boies’s essay in Wall Street Journal today lead my mind to think about how the courts are going to approach arguments on gay marriage. It seems appropriate to question this through what I heard all week during the hearing on the nomination of Sonia Sotomayor.

After the grandstanding this past week about the role of judges applying the law not their personal bias I hope judges in courts soon to hear gay marriage cases follow this senatorial dictum.

I agree with the intent of Judge Sotomayor’s statements that our experiences are integral to how we interpret and understand. Experience by definition is “the fact or state of having been affected by or gained knowledge through direct observation or participation.” It is a filter through which we process all stimuli. No one can escape this pure human function.

Some Senators disagree.

Unfortunately, after purporting that judges leave aside bias, prejudice and personal feelings some senators are hoping to overturn gay marriage rulings in Iowa, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont. They also want to stop California’s Prop 8 from being reversed. Ultimately as U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker predicted, "I am reasonably sure that, given the personalities in this courtroom, this case is only touching down in this court and it will have a life after this court," Walker said. "What happens here is in many ways a prelude to what happens later." Supreme Court here we come.

It certainly seems that those hoping to protect “traditional marriage” are dependent upon relying on bias, prejudice and personal feelings of Christian judges. Religion is probably the most fundamental form of bias, prejudice or personal feelings. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) wants “to be absolutely certain that [judges] will faithfully interpret the law and the Constitution without bias or prejudice.” Is it hypocritical to demand fairness in the abstract but hope for bias in the specific of gay marriage? Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) pronounced, I don’t think he was being ironic, “that's why Lady Justice is always depicted blind and why Aristotle defined law as ‘reason free from passion.’”

Other countries are better at separating religiosity from deciding of legal rights. David Boies writes today in the Wall Street Journal,

"Countries as Catholic as Spain, as different as Sweden and South Africa, and as near as Canada have embraced gay and lesbian marriage without any noticeable effect -- except the increase in human happiness and social stability that comes from permitting people to marry for love."

In the hearings for John Roberts nomination to the high court Sen Coburn said, “"If you have somebody first of all who has that connection with their personal faith and their allegiance to the law, you don't get into the Roe v. Wade situation," Coburn said, according to the Associated Press. "I am looking for somebody who is not going to make that mistake again in any other area of life." Let sing a song for Senator Coburn, “OKLAHOMA WHERE THE HYPOCRISY COMES SWEEPING DOWN THE PLAINS.”

Boies also writes,

"There are those who sincerely believe that homosexuality is inconsistent with their religion -- and the First Amendment guarantees their freedom of belief. However, the same First Amendment, as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses, preclude the enshrinement of their religious-based disapproval in state law."

Why can’t we agree that religious dogma has no place in our courts and the discussion of our rights. And neither does hypocrisy.

Sphere: Related Content