From: John W Burgeson (burgytwo@juno.com)
Date: Wed Nov 13 2002 - 12:38:46 EST
Jay suggested the TPPF website. I've just surfed over there -- it appears
to be a responsible organization generally tending to conservative
positions. In this respect, it appears to parallel TFN which tends more
towards liberal positions. Most of us, of course, think both sides should
be studied.
Thinking further though, it seems that some issues cannot so easily be
separated into conservative and liberal positions. As one who is no doubt
more liberal than conservative, I cringe when I read someone setting up
his or her Aunt Sally of a liberal and then destroying it. But I find the
same sad tendency among some of my liberal friends.
I tend to take positions on ethical issues rather slowly, and usually
only after a long study of the best arguments on all sides of the issues.
Among the few I find myself really fighting for are:
1. For the inclusion of all races and ethnicity as equal persons, worthy
of respect. Friend wife and I were involved in the Civil Rights struggle
of the early 60s, and those were formative years for us.
2. Against the pseudoscience of the YECs. For years I regarded them as
"interesting," and perhaps even with respectable arguments. About 1988 or
1989, after studying them closely in a 4 day seminar they put on in
Dallas, I decided their arguments simply could not hold. I remain
friends, however, with Duane Gish.
3. Against the logical positivism of Dawkins, Sagan, etc. Philosophical
thinking was not a big part of a physics education at Carnegie Tech in
the 1950s, but we were encouraged to do a lot of outside the box reading.
It was there I encountered Eddington, and his Gifford Lectures of 1927,
published as THE NATURE OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD, was a powerful influence
in my understanding that science and the spiritual were addressing two
quite different ways of knowing.
4. For the inclusion of those persons who are, or are seeking, committed
"marriages" in a same gender relationship as equal persons, worthy of
respect. I really struggled with this one -- the notes on my web site
still have traces of that struggle. It is easier now, as I know a number
of such people and count them as friends. Still, the Jung-Smith model of
understanding (see my web site) does not lead me to regard such
relationships as normal. Maybe I should say "normative." On the
Jung-Smith scale (1 to 5) I am somewhere between a 3 and a 4.
5. Against the intrusion of governments into situations where issues are
"murky," and one-size-fits-all legislation is likely to cause more
mischief than it seeks to overcome. Generally, the smaller the
government, the better I like it. But I'm still a Democrat! <G>
6. Aid to the "deserving" poor. Habitat for Humanity is my particular
outlet there. I just placed on page 2 of my web site pictures from our
house dedication last Sunday. Protestants, Jews and Unitarians building a
duplex in Commerce City (north Denver) for a Catholic and a Muslim
family.
7. Aid to the "undeserving" poor. I believe that all humans are imago
dei, not just some.
There are lots of issues I have not studied, and have no particular
position on. How good the schoolbooks REALLY are. Gun control. Aid to
failing corporations (such as Chrysler some years ago). Etc.
There are some I am still working on, abortion issues being one. I
appreciate the comments I got on my recent position statement, both on
and off line. I've modified it a bit -- the present version is now on my
web site. I do not look on it as a finished product.
John Burgeson (Burgy)
http://www.burgy.50megs.com
(an eclectic web site about science/theology, quantum mechanics,
ethics, baseball, humor, cars, philosophy, etc.)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Thu Nov 14 2002 - 01:28:41 EST