Restoring Freedom to Sex Slaves
I count this an eminently sane project spearheaded by Dems:
Sex trafficking victims may soon be able to have prostitution convictions against them vacated, thanks to new legislation approved in Albany.
Young women are often lured to the New York area with promises of jobs and then find themselves coerced into prostitution. Many of these young women get arrested and charged with a crime even though they were forced to do the work against their will.
[...] those convictions can make it harder for women to get jobs or legal residency. The landmark legislation--New York's law is the first in the country--will allow trafficking survivors to start their lives over with a clean slate. As it stands, women who've been abused for years are then forced to disclose their criminal convictions to potential employers.
Sex trafficking is a worldwide scourge. We should do our best to keep it out of the country -- and to help restore the lives of those who have fallen prey to some of the planet's most contemptible beings.
- Comment (8)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Restoring Freedom to Sex Slaves
It's nice to read about good legislation from time to time.
Living in the suburbs, it's easy to forget about problems like that. Oh, we have prostitutes like anywhere else; but they're out of sight, working in homes and massage parlors. One apparently worked out her house just down the street from mine growing up, but I had no idea until many years later.
Jun '10
Re: Restoring Freedom to Sex Slaves
James: Sorry to interrupt this conversation with a completely unrelated question, but since you're the Richochet czar, I thought I'd try.
Here's the question that I'd like to pose to the contributors and readers: I'm a religious conservative, who has been looking at the traditional elements of conservatism. The first of most formulations goes something like "Belief in a transcendent order of objective truth" or "Belief that natural law establishes absolute standards of right and wrong." In other words, conservatives are not moral relativists
As a person of faith, I have no problem with this because I can look to the Biblical/Judeo-Christian tradition as the source for this transcendent truth. I'm also aware that many great conservatives whom I greatly respect are not religious (Heather Mac Donald and Theodore Dalrymple are good examples). So here's the question. For those thoughtful, non-religious conservatives who reject relativism and believe there is such a thing as objective standards of truth, what is the source they look to for that truth? Western civilization? General civilizational standards of conduct?
Can anyone out there shed some light on this issue for me.
May '10
Re: Restoring Freedom to Sex Slaves
Ted, I think you need to distinguish between objective truth and objective morality. Atheists have no problem acknowledging that facts are facts rather than constructions of the mind. On the other hand, objective morality requires an objective definition of what is good. If you can appeal to a supreme being for that answer, it's easy. I don't know many atheists who believe in objective morality. My impression is that most of them take some kind of basic assumption, like "Human life is a good" and build from there. That's what Ayn Rand did.
Jun '10
Re: Restoring Freedom to Sex Slaves
Rocket Science: Thanks for the thoughtful comments--the truth versus morality point makes sense. Do you know if anyone has written on the subject, specifically non-religious conservatives? I certainly don't think conservatism requires religion, and people like Dalrymple and Mac Donald are wonderful defenders of conservative principles. Just wonder how they solve an issue that's easy for me to solve because of my religious worldview.
I hope James can throw the question out for broader comment.
Re: Restoring Freedom to Sex Slaves
Ted, I'm more than happy to promote this important question, and soon. But let me throw out one answer that comes quickly to the mind of a political theorist. Philosophy. The contention is made that religion offers objective truth, including moral truth, by way of revelation, whereas philosophy offers the same by way of reason. Clearly, this opens a vast can of worms -- by some accounts, the can of worms -- but for that reason it's an answer to reckon with.
May '10
Re: Restoring Freedom to Sex Slaves
Ayn Rand comes to mind, but I haven't done too much reading along the boundary between religious and nonreligious conservatism. Many people don't consider her a conservative (including herself) but there is a lot of overlap.
May '10
Re: Restoring Freedom to Sex Slaves
I hold the classical Greek view that all is philosophy (love, and so pursuit, of truth).
Theology, like all sciences and academic philosophy, is an application of experience, logic and faith. One can have religious beliefs bereft of reason, but it it as common to accept scientific principles without having questioned them. To some extent, everyone should question basic principles to the best of his or her ability, but faith is often reasonable. The world is too vast and complex for any one person to explore every question.
For an example of scientific faith, consider the speed of light. Why do most astrophysicists believe we know that speed? Because they read it in a book and heard it from professors (who read it in books -- inherited knowledge). They're told that it can be proven, and it seems logical, yet how many of them set out to prove it? Rather than test this knowledge with experience, most simply choose to trust (the definition of faith) that others have tested it.
And rightfully so, because how can one build great works without ever taking your eyes off the foundations? Let some review the past so others may focus on the future.
May '10
Re: Restoring Freedom to Sex Slaves
Before I was so rudely interrupted by a power outage, I meant to add:
Scientific faith and religious faith are both faith in experience. One cannot "test" God as one can test the rate of an element's radioactive decay because God is a person (in some greater sense than a human being). An unliving object must respond according to circumstances, but a living willful being may act independently of forces put upon it.
An occurrence can be unrepeatable by experiment and yet repeated. To use another astrophysics example, one might witness a cosmic explosion through a telescope. The scientist cannot make another explosion happen, nor predict when or where another will occur, but the experience is enlightening still.
Christians believe that God has interacted with human beings very overtly and continues to do so. At the most basic level, we believe in the story of Jesus; which is to say that we accept the veracity of first-hand accounts handed down over thousands of years. But most Christians (and believers of other religions) also know people who have had their own experiences with the divine. I personally know several people with their own first-hand accounts of angels and miracles.