Phi for All

Or a religion extremist. He's definitely at an extreme end regarding religion in general.

Doesn't morality have to have a rational transition into society through laws? Without going completely into the political spectrum, I've never understood how "life begins at conception" proponents expect this morality to be enforced. The police would have to investigate every miscarriage as a possible murder. The resulting litigation would reduce the personal freedom of pregnant women horribly. Slip and fall potentially becomes criminally negligent manslaughter. I know this sounds like a slippery slope argument, but we are talking about the legal system and lawyers, after all. It's bound to come up.

That was absolutely an extreme act of faith. He certainly is at an extreme end of the allowed range.

No, I think Mr Skeptic's example is correct. The extremes are measured from the allowed range, not from the center. Perhaps we differ on the word "faith" then, because "extreme" seems very clear to everyone in this thread so far but you. When I talk about faith, it's not just belief ("I believe in God"), but an unshakable stance that may fly in the face of rational observation and yet still survive all criticism ("God as the Presbyterians believe in Him is real and nothing you can say can convince me He isn't"). The fact that almost 84% of people in the US say they have faith is questionable in this regard. I think they are saying that they think what they hear in church is true, not that they will stand by the tenets of their religion in the face of all reason and evidence to the contrary. What I'm asking is if a person is judged by their faith, then isn't "I have unshakable faith" better than "I think this is true"? And if a person has the most faith a person can have, couldn't that person legitimately be considered an extremist?

No, my question is whether or not extremism is the default for *faith*, it's right there in the title.

In case you missed me asking it earlier, how do *you* define extremism? Because by every definition I've seen and heard here, the Amish are religious extremists. So are creationists, due to their narrow literal interpretations and unyielding insistence in a young earth in the face of physical evidence to the contrary. My opening question revolves around the idea that the burning faith that is the hallmark of so many religions appears to be similar to all these definitions of extremism. So once again, how do *you* define extremism?

cathy, I take it the fire brigade was unable to determine the source of the toluene smell. Some questions: 1. Do you heat your house with heating oil? 2. Do you store any paint products in your home? 3. Do you have a basement or crawlspace, and if so, do either of those have a dirt floor? 4. Is there any room where the smell is greater? 5. Do any of your neighbors have a similar problem?

Religious Extremism:any religious theory favoring immoderate uncompromising policies; the actions or ideologies of individuals or groups outside the perceived religious center of a society; literal interpretation and strict adherence to a set of basic religious principles. I don't see how I was defining it wrong. So you equate religious extremism with violence? How do you define it?

I think you're equating extremism with violence. I define extreme as a viewpoint at the far end of a scale, whatever the scale. To me, the Amish are extreme anti-technologists. Their faith is unyielding with regards to modern technology, even when it can be proven more efficient. To them, work isn't about efficiency, it's about things they equate with their faith in God. They have taken the idea of working hard with their hands to reap the bounty of the earth to an extreme, and to me this seems like what faith is supposed to do, to fly in the face of rationality yet still provide something that rationality can't.

I can understand people on opposite sides of a fence having a discussion across it and being intractable about their positions, but it bothers me that there are those who want to stop those people from having the discussion in the first place. You can't hear them unless you go over there, but you're claiming that just the sight of them through the window is offensive?! That seems extreme.

I'd like to be assured that my involvement in my society doesn't end with me being experimented on against my will. Ethical treatment benefits me and others who feel the same way.

I thought bascule phrased his stance in a beautifully tactful way in Which Religion is Right?: He doesn't have to deride anyone to get his point across. He doesn't even have to put religion down to let you know why he prefers science. And based on our past P&R forum, we gave more infractions for religious people not being tactful than the other way around, so we'll definitely be watching for this. To be fair, they were usually in the minority position, but that's no reason to retaliate with discourtesy.

You never answered my question in post #5 about the bum-grab. Why do you put that in the same context as the thrown milkshake, just general lack of respect?

Perhaps it's different in the UK, but in the states we have a Public Police Record that's available: When it comes to completeness in checking violation of law or regulation, an excellent resource is found in Public Police Records. It is different from Criminal Records in that it is not just about crime and conviction. Anytime you have any interaction or engagement with the police, it will likely go into your police records. Although public police records are tasked differently from state to state, it generally means all reports recorded by police, including complaints and requests submitted by the public. This inherently implies that anything that is not in norm or order is deemed to be under police charter. Some prominent enforcement-related features in police records are arrest, driving violations, violence, sex offenses, gangs, drugs fraud and public disturbance. Other informative type data are also listed for example firearms permit, traffic accidents, address history, family members, lost and found, missing person, property and so forth. Source: http://ezinearticles.com/?Free-Public-Police-Records?&id=878337 So the bad guy doesn't even have to go down to the station, he can just get his lawyer to check the public records (it does require some credentials, you can't just look it up online). I'd have to assume that bad guys might have access to lawyers with similar scruples. Again, for me this would be about acceptable risk. Once I decide to do anything about the case at all, I have to decide if even doing the right legal thing would have repercussions for me and my family. Ethically, for me, throwing the suitcase out the window removes most of the ownership questions. The rest is just a matter of how much risk is involved in keeping any of the contents, or letting any of the contents fall into the hands of children.

The charge would be Theft By Finding, and in the case of this youth from the UK, you could end up with a public record of the affair. Though the charges in this case were later dropped, this is exactly why I wouldn't want a record of it on file. And what if the police suspect there was something else in the suitcase that I took? At the least they may hold me for suspicion and possibly get a warrant to search my house. More public record that the bad guy could trace back to me. Actually, I made the assumption that the money was gotten from dealing drugs, making the driver the legitimate owner of the money (but not if the money is found with the drugs - I'm pretty sure both would be confiscated by the police if they assumed he was a dealer) and that the man ditched the suitcase because any single piece of what was in the case would be enough to get him into huge trouble. We don't know what the police were chasing him for, but we can assume that even having just the cash without any explanation for it would at least give the police probable cause to investigate him more deeply, possibly finding the rest of his drugs at his house. The pot had to go no matter what and the gun would be illegal also if he had no permit. I could see this as a good solution (since I feel the same way you do about all three items), but turning it in creates a record, and you have to remember that we're dealing with a potentially violent criminal here. What if he waits patiently for six months, allows me to collect the unclaimed money, and then comes to my house to get it back? That's an unacceptable risk for me. No, I don't think that likely, but as I said earlier, if this becomes public record then you run the risk of losing your anonymity. I'd have to look up the policy regarding unclaimed found property, but I still think the money would be tied to the drugs and you'd get nothing but the suitcase, along with a record for someone to follow back to you.

Interesting. That's a UK law that seems to have no counterpart elsewhere. But I fail to see how that would encourage you to turn the whole suitcase in to the police and risk arrest. I'm not sure "reasonable attempt" is defined that way exactly. If I run up to the street level, after hearing the owner's car speed away, and find that he is out of earshot and line of sight, are you saying that the only other recourse is to risk being arrested? That doesn't seem "reasonable". How exactly would he hold you liable? Are you saying he would report someone having stolen a suitcase he threw out his window while being chased by the police? Legally, I agree. Ethically, I'm not so sure. Like Mr Skeptic, I don't think our drug laws are ethical at all. I don't think the police would give you anything but the suitcase itself after no one claimed it. You'd need a permit in the US for the gun, that much pot is illegal, and since the money was found with the drugs, I'm betting you wouldn't ever see that either.

Was that you in the first car, John Cuthber? In that case, you should know that a public path is not a storage area. Once you pitch that suitcase out where anyone can find it, it's up to the ethics of the person who finds it to decide who it belongs to. There's no way to contact you, short of placing an ad in the newspaper (can you imagine?). And remember, since I found it, I know the circumstances surrounding its leaving your possession. I know you're a criminal of some sort, or would be if the police had caught you with the case. This means you forced me to fear dealing with you. I can't know what kind of reaction you might have to me returning your property. I'm the kind of person who will find a $100 on the floor of a supermarket and turn it in to lost and found, but these circumstances are vastly different due to the possible repercussions of my normal moral options.

"Hello, police? I'm calling anonymously from a payphone about this guy in southeastern North Carolina who has a gun in a suitcase...."

Does he just use it to start the fire, or does he continue to squirt more on once the fire is lit?

I recommend the Yucatan peninsula of Mexico. Right on the Caribbean, gorgeous beaches, Mayan calendars EVERYWHERE!

Well crap, I thought I had it all figured out for myself until you posted this! I was going to risk being seen hiding it all in my jacket, leaving the suitcase empty. Late at night the risk was acceptable. I would keep the money, give the pot to some folks I know who partake, and then disassemble the gun and throw away a couple of pieces a day until it was gone. Like you, I didn't want to be caught with a weapon that might have a bad history. And I don't need a handgun in my house even if it's clean. Like Mr Skeptic, I can't contact the real owners, and they gave up possession when they tossed it out the window of their car (litterbugs!). I don't want to turn in anything but the full contents to the police for fear that the bad guys might find out and know I have some of their stuff (I have a family to protect). I can't leave anything but the suitcase for anyone else to find. I don't really want to turn in anything but the gun to the police and I thought getting rid of it piece by piece was the answer, but then you had to mention that the gun might be evidence in a trial, and I hadn't considered that angle. Now I have to rethink the whole thing. I'm still a little iffy on turning the whole thing in because of possible reprisals, so I may think about a way to make an anonymous tip about where to find the handgun and where I got it. Or I may have to return the whole thing anonymously. Damn you, Moontanman!

This makes no sense. If you removed all matter, what are you coming back to in the present? And what does this have to do with defining life in terms of abortion? It's really simple: if you define life too early, you have to include too many things we kill all the time. If you define human life as being different, special, then again if you define it as living at an early stage, then every instance of miscarriage is potentially a murder, not just abortions.

The girl grabbing your bum seems a little anomalous. Were there words spoken, or skin broken, or was it more of a pre-teen grope on a dare from her friends? Your bum is your butt, right? That's the right UK slang, isn't it? Was she doing it in a derisive manner, a suggestive manner, or a your-wallet-will-pop-out-if-I-squeeze-hard-enough manner? Young people seem to target other young people, especially if they know the person and are fairly certain there'd be no retaliation. People in cars also seem to think they are safe from those on foot, which they are unless they are throwing something at you and you have a cell phone camera handy for a quick pic of a license plate (and even then you probably need a witness to show that they assaulted you). We don't get much of that where I live, and even in an urban setting it's not as common these days, as long as you stay out of places where teens prowl for their kicks. There is also much to be said about walking with confidence, as if to suggest you are not the type of person to throw things at. Some people walk all hunched over like they expect to get hit any moment. These people have a target on their backs and seem to draw thugs like a crazy-magnet.

Unyielding faith, a belief so strong and unswerving that it provides comfort and guidance in the face of life's trials seems to be the cornerstone of many religions. But wouldn't that seem to suggest that faith taken to the extreme is the best faith of all? Where does faith cross the line into extremism?

Personally, I have more of a problem with leaving anything behind for kids to find than I have with taking any of it. I guess I feel like once I made this my problem by intervening in any way, I would want to try hard to avoid it becoming someone else's problem. I would still worry about any contents I left behind being found by someone while I figured out how to leave a tip anonymously. Dumping the remainder increases the chances of being seen with the suitcase, which would be memorable in this setting. I do agree with you about the money, though. Once you decide to do anything other than report it like John Cuthber, you can't realistically consider returning it to its owners (any of the contents, actually).