There has been a lengthy discussion in response to my essay about socialism in the United States. I really don't have time to debate back and forth the same issues repeatedly, but I've taken the time to write my responses in red in regards to this discussion. I have posted my thoughts on this subject and I have taken plenty of time to respond thoroughly to the requests/comments of "Nick." Despite the fact that Nick has accused me of not wanting to back up my beliefs, I have done this and still am being attacked. This is my final post in regards to the original essay on socialism.
Here is the original post if you're interested in reading it: http://www.homeschoolblogger.com/homemakerscottage/493077
Sonya
(Comments below are from "Nick" except for comments in red, which are my responses.)
1) "Freedom of" versus "Freedom From" -
You cannot have "freedom of religion" without "freedom from religion". Our forbears were escaping forced adherence to a government sanctioned church, which is widely accepted by scholars. I agree they were escaping government-forced church and thus were seeking freedom OF religion. This is an example of "freedom from religion, specifically from the Church of England. As a counterexample, the Puritans, who held their membership and allegiance to the C of E, did not have "freedom of religion" as they did not have "freedom from religion". You’re right. They did not have freedom OF religion; this is why they came to America. As I stated before, there is a HUGE difference in freedom OF and freedom FROM religion. You don't seem to understand this.
Citing text and offering no historically relevant interpretation of said text is meaningless; you have to look at the impetus of those who penned the text in the first place. I have accurately cited the text and also the reasoning behind it. You have taken “freedom of religion” and changed it into “freedom from religion.” I understand what you’re trying to say, but it is not historically accurate in the context of why the first settlers came to America, nor is it accurate in describing the meaning behind the First Amendment. I said this before and you still insist that you are correct so I see no point in debating this with you further.
2) The term "hypocrite" -
I hate to do this but I have to, seeing as how you think this term constitutes ad hominem.
Quoted from Merriam-Webster:
1 : a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
2 : a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
I did not call you names,attack you, nor was I rude when I applied the term "hypocrite" to you in my previous post. Let's try and be accurate here.
Let’s see… you said: “So you expect everyone to be open-minded enough to respect your dogmatic metaphysical beliefs, yet you categorically refuse to respect anything that contradicts your beliefs for better or for worse? Wow, you are a hypocrite.” I would say (a) that IS rude and (b) you DID misapply what I said. I said I would not teach anything to my children that contradicts what I believe, but you said I refuse to respect anything that contradicts my beliefs. There is a HUGE difference in teaching something and showing respect. I respect others and their beliefs, but again, with the freedoms I so enjoy in this country, it is my right to teach my children what I believe to be true the same as it’s yours.
3) Respect -
You: "I even respect the theories themselves." Really? What about your behavior or statements on science from your opening post suggests that to me? I am not sure what you are referring to, but I did say: “Today in our society, our children are trained not to question scientific ideas such as those proposed by Charles Darwin. Throughout human history, scientists have been the one group of people who absolutely insisted on testing theories to prove them correct or disprove them (even though they sometimes died for their findings).” I stand by that statement. It’s not disrespectful at all. What I stated is that scientists used to be taught to test theories and today they are not. I positively respect the theories, but I do not respect a system that no longer cares to seek the truth, but rather jumps on a bandwagon of popularity.
Simply saying that you have respect for something after the fact is both effortless and meaningless. Again, I have shown respect for scientific theories. You are making accusations without truth to back them up.
4) You: " What I did say was that I will not teach it as fact when they cannot prove it."
Umm, not exactly. What you wrote was:
"I will NOT teach my children anything that is mandated by the state that contradicts the truth of the Bible." Yep, I said that and I stand by it. That is my right.
Theistic "truth" is self-referential, and thus not falsifiable or mutually experienceable. I disagree with this, but I don’t think you’re going to understand.
The Bible cannot prove itself. There are discoveries each year that prove the statements in the Bible. However, if you’re so determined NOT to believe, it is going to be impossible to do so anyway.
The Bible is also inherently contradictory, especially if you are a biblical literalist or if you believe that it is the inerrant word of God. I agree that there are things that are not easily understood, but this does not mean the Bible is contradictory. And yes, I do believe it’s the inerrant word of God, but if you’re focused only on the metaphysical (as you like to quote), then it’s difficult to see that we can’t always understand the eternal perspective. It’s kind of like when something happens and you get frustrated that it happened, but then a few days later, you see how it really worked out for the best.
If you are not a literalist, then you are forced to cherry-pick allegory and literalism on a human whim and then to parade it around as absolute truth, when there is no such thing. The statement that there is not an absolute truth makes me think there is no reason to continue this discussion. I am sure you have difficulty with all of this if you really believe that there is no absolute right or wrong. That’s why parents are no longer teaching their children that stealing a pack of gum is wrong (what if they REALLY want it) or that telling a lie is wrong (what if it’s going to save them from getting a spanking) or that cheating is wrong (they really want a good grade). I would say that this particular trend of thought (that there is no absolute truth) is the MAIN reason our society is in the condition it’s in now.
Science is mutually experienceable, and perhaps most importantly is falsifiable. Any scientific theory can always be called into question and falsified. This is not true. True science can be proven.
Nothing in reality can be absolutely proven true, and if you think that it can, provide me with a single example. The best we have (with regard to interpreting the physical world) is science, as it uses every human tool at our disposal to arrive at highly specific and probable truth interpretations. I really have no idea what you’re talking about here. I can prove to you that I have an arm and a leg. That’s reality.
---
One last thing: wasn't Jesus Christ supposed to be both poor and compassionate? How do you reconcile the fact that you are railing against things like universal healthcare and free college in favor of lower taxes with your alleged Christ-like, excuse me, Christian values? Jesus left the disciples with this: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat.” The New Testament itself is full of examples of compassion, yet there is a huge difference in compassion for those who are doing for themselves versus people who simply want everything to be handed to them without putting any effort into it themselves. With a system that offers free universal healthcare, free college, etc., you are actually encouraging people to take advantage of the system, the richer people to exploit the poor, etc. That seems rather selfish to me. Ohhh wait, you only care about adherents to *your* religion. Heh, how foolish of me. Again, you say you’re not being rude, but this is incredibly rude. I do not only care about fellow Christians. Actually, if anything, I care about others more because they do not have the ROCK of salvation to lean on. That makes me sad for them.
Let us be crystal clear:
I never said that I "hate" religious people, nor am I looking for a "fight". You did say this. It’s obvious from the tone in your e-mails. I was challenging you to show the rationale behind your vitriolic opinions in a debate/productive public argument. It is anti-intellectual and disingenuous to try and thwart productive arguments by conflating them with fighting. The fact that you failed to rise to this challenge of your world-view through argumentation hints at the amount of insight (or lack thereof) that went into the development of said world-view. It’s not that I’ve failed to do anything, but I’ve given you my side, you’ve shared your side. As far as I’m concerned, we can agree to disagree and both leave happy, but it seems that you do want to continue until there is an “end” to the debate and there is not going to be one.
Bear in mind that you invited an argument/debate when you broadcasted your personal opinions to everyone with internet access. To make things worse, you opine a lot about other people's lifestyle choices and concepts of freedom. This needs to be challenged and you should be capable and willing to rise to that challenge. Again, I have no problem discussing my point of view or supporting what statements I’ve made, but what is the end goal?
If you are overly-sensitive about your beliefs, then don't broadcast them over the internet, because sooner or later you are going to have to account for those beliefs. I’m happy to discuss my beliefs with you, but I also have five children to teach, a house to clean, laundry to wash, and I don’t get paid to do those things. I also don’t get paid to sit around writing on this blog. J
Given your background, I am curious as to whether or not you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Given my background, you might think I would be pro-abortion (there are only two options – pro-life or pro-abortion. Either you believe a child is a child from conception and you should cherish this life OR this is not the case and you have the option to end the “pregnancy.”) However, this is another example of the grace of God in my life. A child is a child no matter how small and that child deserves the same rights as any other human being – including the right to be born.
Also, I'd like to ask you what kind of god would continually feed the rich while the poor starve en masse? God doesn’t starve people. He has given us plenty of resources to feed everyone, but people misuse resources (such as planting tobacco where there could be food) or even refuse to eat food that’s directly in front of them (such as not eating cows because someone thinks they are gods) or corrupt governments taking food and keeping it away from the common people (as many Middle Eastern and South American governments do).
I'll ask you again to respond to actual arguments that I made in previous posts. So there are my responses to all your comments – in the previous post and this post.
My world-view is limited only by the pusuit of understanding, truth and freedom, thus not very limited.
Your world-view is limited to a single book that was written thousands of years ago by uneducated, violent and churlish people. You have no idea what my world view is. While I do adhere to a Biblical world-view, my ideas have also been formulated by miraculous events in my own life, relationships with other people, other great books, etc. In my opinion, all of these things have pointed to mankind as a miraculous creation, not a creature of chance. Did you ever read the Old Testament? It is one of the most violent books ever written! I would never disagree with that. I am so thankful that God gave us another plan with His Son Jesus Christ!
VTY,
Nick
Comments
Oct. 24, 2008 - hmmm...
Posted by PrairieMoo
I have not read your blog in the past but I was very interested when I read this post. There is so much I could say but overall, I just wanted to tell you to "keep on keeping on"... excellent debate. I will have to spend more time on your blog reading some of your back posts because I think that this one was very intellectually stimulating. Thanks for the post!
Nov. 19, 2009 - Wow!
Posted by Amanda
You did a great job in the debate, ma'am! You're so intelligent!
Nov. 19, 2009 - thanks
Posted by sonyahaskins5
Thank you guys for the encouragement. The Lord has allowed me to be able to use words well so I want to use them to glorify HIM - whether that's through a debate or through my books. Unfortunately, it has taken me many years and growth to realize that I have to be so careful with my words in life, too... like with my husband. Learning the lessons of being so careful with our speech is one of the reasons I am actually thankful for age and maturity. It is only through those that I have been able to get to the point where I am now very careful about my words not only in my writing, but also in person. Anyway, I really enjoy writing so I hope you guys will read more. :) Sonya