More on Terri Schiavo and the Fundamental Rights of Man:
(A Rerum Novarum Inculcation Thread)
According to Fr. Rob Johansen, [a] Kansas woman, Sarah Scantlin, recently began talking after 20 years of brain-damage induced silence.
Her doctors "believe critical pathways in the brain may have regenerated."
It seems providential that this occurrence has taken place not long before Terri Schiavo's husband will again again attempt to sacrifice her life on the altar of "inconvenience" within the coming week. For that reason, it seems appropriate to remind readers of this weblog about one of my defenses of the three fundamental rights of man -in this case pertaining to Terri Schiavo.{1} As critical as I have been of the inconsistency of those who selectively defend one fundamental right while undermining one or more of the other two by inaction, I am thereby bound out of principle to reiterate these principles at opportune points of time where they may serve a benefit for the legions of those who are unable to formulate a consistent thread of argumentation on these issues. With that in mind, I direct the readers to this thread and the following important points from it as they again pertain to the Terri Schiavo situation:
Hopefully my readers will now realize that all three fundamental rights of man must be defended as a unit or else they all fall. And hopefully my explicit exhortations [...] in developing a consistent philosophical ethic to combat these evils over the past year -and implicit in the year plus preceding it- will finally start gaining some traction in the blogosphere.
All of the hair pulling, all of the ranting about violations in these areas have to be addressed systematically my friends and from the same core premises. This will require learning a new hermeneutic of argumentation to some extent but if we want to actually win this culture war -and not merely receive constant "stays of execution"- it is something that all of us who care about these issues must learn to do. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 30, 2003)]
Basically my friends, the approach of too many well meaning people is merely to get Terri another "stay of execution" and that is not a viable long-term approach to this issue. What is needed long term is learning a valuable theory which will aid people of a conservative mindset in supplying order to their thinking and helping them to see the broader forest for the trees.
But this is not an "either/or" situation by any means but instead it is a "both/and" situation. Or to phrase it in that manner, we should be seeking both to preserve Terri's life and laying in place a consistent principle of argumentation for defending the fundamental rights of man.{2} These rights are all dependent upon one another and when one is undermined, the other two by logical extension are as well. I am left wondering when Terri's advocates are not only going to stop seeing this as only a "life" issue but are also going to start seeing both parts of the "both/and" rather than only the first one. But that is all I will say on the matter at this time.
Notes:
{1} For those who wondered why I approached the subject of Jeff Culbreath's business and property a while back as I did in discussing the subject of Traditional Moral Principles and the clarifying followup post, you now have your reason.
I did not explicitly have the Terri Schiavo situation in mind; however note if you will that the defense of Jeff with altering a few particulars also functions as a defense of Terri. The latter was serendipitous by my own admission but a grounded logic on these matters is easily adaptable to other situations where fundamental rights are violated. In Jeff's case, the fundamental right was to property or production. With Terri Schiavo, the fundamental right was the right to life.
This is why I have focused in the past year on fundamental rights and grounding them in a consistent rationale. If we are to turn the tide on the culture wars, it will be by a strong and consistent rationale as well as the kind of heroic front line stances taken by those in the Shiavo and Culbreath situations. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 26, 2003)]
{2} The fundamental rights of man are three in number. They are God given and they precede all man made laws. It is in fact because these rights already existed -and an innate understanding of their implications- which is why men formed societies and wrote laws to begin with. And as these rights do not depend on laws for their existence, they likewise cannot be repealed by laws without perverting justice and the very notion of what law in a just society is intended to achieve.
Friday, February 18, 2005
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
Monday, February 14, 2005
On the Blogosphere and Mainstream Media Hypocritical Double Standards:
(A Brief Rerum Novarum Reinteration Thread)
The purpose of this post is twofold: (i) to reiterate one of this weblog's positions and also (ii) to direct readers to a scathing indictment of the mainstream media (MSM) attitude and approach to the blogosphere which was posted today. Just a couple of titbits though...
What is unique in the war on blogging is that the battles are not one based on politics, but one based on hatred of the blogosphere by the old media as it continues to lose readership and the revenues a large readership attracts. The targets are both those on the left and right of the blogosphere...
Old media did, and still do not only report on those that have erred in the public eye, but in many cases go overboard in their attempts to report the story.
Bloggers have not staked out private residences, nor thrust Television camera’s into people's faces. They have simply reported what they believe to be fact.
Which is worse, a media salivating for blood with telescopic photo lenses, or a relatively small number of bloggers sitting at their computers writing on the events of the day.
Who is really the lynch mob? [LINK]
In short, the article above is an excellent summation of why We at Rerum Novarum have long had such a low view of the MSM...so low in fact that We formulated a dictum on the MSM a long time ago.{1} Admittedly the definition of this principle was a still a tad bit nebulous until last year after several shorthand asides to it in various dialogues compelled Us to define the concept. Anyway, the McElhinney Media Dictum is defined as follows:
The media, particularly the major outlets of the press --their pretensions of being "more enlightened than thou" notwithstanding-- seem almost inexorably to operate on a presuppositional foundation that is equal parts irresponsible fundamentalism and an unproven (but presumed a priori) empiricist outlook. Therefore, the more complex the variables of a particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc., the less they can be trusted to be reliable reporters of said positions, situations, arguments, etc. In summary, the media's propensity for error is in direct proportion to the intricacies of the particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc.
This definition was followed with an important clarification{3} but noting those things will help readers of this post understand with greater clarity why an article such as the one excerpted above finds such favour with Us so that is all that will be noted on the matter at this time.
Notes:
{1} Indeed the principles behind this long held dictum were held long before this writer had ever even heard of an internet (let along the blogosphere of which Rerum Novarum is a part thereof).
{2} The definition was taken from a Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG entry (circa August 2, 2004).
{3} It should go without saying that this principle also applies to many of the major media outlets of any particular weltanschauung. Generally the more "mainstream" something is, the more simplified and bereft of essential details or nuances it inevitably is or will become. And as they say "God is often in the details." [A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG entry (circa August 2, 2004)]
(A Brief Rerum Novarum Reinteration Thread)
The purpose of this post is twofold: (i) to reiterate one of this weblog's positions and also (ii) to direct readers to a scathing indictment of the mainstream media (MSM) attitude and approach to the blogosphere which was posted today. Just a couple of titbits though...
What is unique in the war on blogging is that the battles are not one based on politics, but one based on hatred of the blogosphere by the old media as it continues to lose readership and the revenues a large readership attracts. The targets are both those on the left and right of the blogosphere...
Old media did, and still do not only report on those that have erred in the public eye, but in many cases go overboard in their attempts to report the story.
Bloggers have not staked out private residences, nor thrust Television camera’s into people's faces. They have simply reported what they believe to be fact.
Which is worse, a media salivating for blood with telescopic photo lenses, or a relatively small number of bloggers sitting at their computers writing on the events of the day.
Who is really the lynch mob? [LINK]
In short, the article above is an excellent summation of why We at Rerum Novarum have long had such a low view of the MSM...so low in fact that We formulated a dictum on the MSM a long time ago.{1} Admittedly the definition of this principle was a still a tad bit nebulous until last year after several shorthand asides to it in various dialogues compelled Us to define the concept. Anyway, the McElhinney Media Dictum is defined as follows:
The media, particularly the major outlets of the press --their pretensions of being "more enlightened than thou" notwithstanding-- seem almost inexorably to operate on a presuppositional foundation that is equal parts irresponsible fundamentalism and an unproven (but presumed a priori) empiricist outlook. Therefore, the more complex the variables of a particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc., the less they can be trusted to be reliable reporters of said positions, situations, arguments, etc. In summary, the media's propensity for error is in direct proportion to the intricacies of the particular position, argument, situation, problem, etc.
This definition was followed with an important clarification{3} but noting those things will help readers of this post understand with greater clarity why an article such as the one excerpted above finds such favour with Us so that is all that will be noted on the matter at this time.
Notes:
{1} Indeed the principles behind this long held dictum were held long before this writer had ever even heard of an internet (let along the blogosphere of which Rerum Novarum is a part thereof).
{2} The definition was taken from a Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG entry (circa August 2, 2004).
{3} It should go without saying that this principle also applies to many of the major media outlets of any particular weltanschauung. Generally the more "mainstream" something is, the more simplified and bereft of essential details or nuances it inevitably is or will become. And as they say "God is often in the details." [A Rerum Novarum Miscellaneous BLOG entry (circa August 2, 2004)]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)