Extra Cultural Warfare Update

Normally, I don't do these on Saturday, but article one made me go, "woah," so I'm sending it out now. Then I hit article four, which was actually more disturbing. Article four is particularly interesting, because it's not policy; it's an approach to knowledge and argument. It attempts to redefine a "skeptic" as an "existentialist" (by defining skepticism as one would normally define existentialism), and providing a set of bulwarking arguments for what they call "particularism," which is to say, the assertion of ideas as truths without backing, justification, or knowledge. Also, in a paragraph not quoted (but at the URL), they attempt to prime against a useful argument against fundamentalist dictate thought, by providing an easy (and, IMO, inadequate) out. It's interesting that they're providing it. Many people must be using the argument involved.

Article one is still very interesting, though for more practical reasons.

Theoconservatives argue that you do _not have the right_ to refuse life support, feeding tubes, etc., even in the form of a living will - Andrew Sullivan commentary and quoting;

Larger text and direct link to what Sullivan was quoting - an article that I saw on Friday but didn't read enough to understand its importance;

Illinois governor signs emergency rule requiring pharmacies to fill all valid prescriptions after a Chicago pharmacist refuses to dispense birth control pills - if a pharmacist refuses to do so, another pharmacist at the same store must be available _immediately_ to do so - order is valid for 150 days while a permanent rule can be written;

Boundless runs an article indicating that fundamentalists may be trying to redefine - at least within their own community - the word "skeptic" to mean "existentialist" (by doing so), and provide an argument bulwark for defending positions fundamentalists hold that they cannot explain or justify;

Focus on the Family article on the evils of divorce.

( Article excerpts and URLs )