By your silence in responding to that aspect, you basically conceded that indeed you operate under certain absolutes (okay, I'll use your phrase of consistent, ongoing, always-applied guideline to soften the blow here) that you live by and apply to ethical decision-making.
We all have them. Call them absolutes, convictions, values, ethics, guidelines, principles, applied worldviews, mandates, directives, commandments, moral codes, or whatever else.
Aside from my minor comments--and obviously you disagreed w/me extending your applied worldviews to broader applications, my overall theme in drawing those together was to convince you that indeed you do operate on certain compass-points.
Now, what do your absolutes all have in common? The answer is in the area of accountability. Those who tend to cite the "don't judge" Jesus scripture are trying to avoid accountability for others or self. You also have consistently posted a reasonable, practical argument that if a local group sanctions these educators, that is fine since it's w/in their perview to do so. But if an individual tries to do so, then, no, an individual can't define for someone else how to behave. While that's a good general guideline, it carries some fallibilities. My major point w/the Wallenberg illustration was not so much the action (Holocaust) he was trying to prevent as much as the fact that a lone individual can indeed be right and can indeed be right in trying to define how someone else behaves. You were focusing on the actions of the Nazis whereas the major point of my illustration was to focus on the action of Wallenberg as one lone voice crying out in the wilderness. (I mean Wallenberg wasn't wrestling Jews out of the hands of Nazis; he was giving them jobs & assigning them Swedish-protected papers).
William Wilberforce and his small Clapham sect for years upon years (late 18th century) tried to define how the entire country of England should act, even though they were not slave owners. Wilberforce finally got his way in opposing a practice that was completely legal in England.
Again, the key point here, is that once again your absolute here zeroes in on staving off accountability from lone sources. John the Baptist, one of the greatest Jews who ever lived (Jesus referred to him as such), one time took on Herod the ruler over an issue that was completely legal. Herod was sleeping with his brother's wife, Herodias. (see Luke 3:19). John the Baptist publicly rebuked him. I guess you would take issue with that.
I suppose you would, had you lived then, had the gall to go tell John the Baptist to stop being a busybody. Who Herod slept with was not only completely legal, but was not John's business. John's underlying ethic there, is what Paul later said (to the Corinthians): "You are not your own. Your body is not your own. Your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit." So, once again, we are accountable in the way we use our bodies (Paul was objecting to someone in the Corinthian church who was sleeping with his father's wife).
Here again, I'm sure you would tell off Paul: "Who are you, a non-Corinthian, to come in here and tell the Corinthians how to live? If they want a person sleeping w/his father's wife to be in the midst of their church, live and let live. There's nothing illegal about that. If the Corinthian church wants to decide to sanction that, let them decide. Let their community decide. If they decide there's a problem, then will you be quiet?" [bold-face, your own quote]
You see, this whole thrust of trying to quiet still, lone voices is the liberals' greatest thrust vs. living lives of accountability. In a word, it's what one Christian thinker has called "safism"--the attempt to make the world safe for all atheists.
that's because you didn't prove your point. An absolute and a guideline are different things - an absolute, according to Merriam-Webster, is "having no restriction, exception, or qualification" while a guideline is "an indication or outline of policy or conduct". Clearly an indication or outline leaves room for consideration of various aspects of a situation, while the absolute would require me to come to the same conclusion in all areas, as you are trying to make it seem I would do. Since I don't think you are convincing anyone but yourself, I'm really not going to waste a lot of energy refuting that I was and would have been then (were I alive) opposed to the Nazis and in support of anyone who opposed them actively. This is because they were taking part in genocide, something which the people most directly affected HAD NO SAY. Therefore they had to be protected by outside sources because they could not simply gather together, go to Hitler and let him know that they were opposed to his death camps. I somehow don't think that would have done much good.
Mi>Those who tend to cite the "don't judge" Jesus scripture are trying to avoid accountability for others or self. You also have consistently posted a reasonable, practical argument that if a local group sanctions these educators, that is fine since it's w/in their perview to do so. But if an individual tries to do so, then, no, an individual can't define for someone else how to behave. While that's a good general guideline, it carries some fallibilities.
sure, that's why it's a guideline, which is merely an outline for how I approach a situation. Given the facts of this situation as I see them, I see no reason that you, a complete outsider to this situation, should have any say whatsoever in what happens to these teachers. You can spout your opinion all you want, I just don't believe you have any position to actually censure these teachers yourself. In a situation like the Holocaust, other factors would cause me to determine that this guideline must be dropped, as the situation is so garish that it cannot be ignored just because we are not in the vicinity.
John the Baptist, one of the greatest Jews who ever lived (Jesus referred to him as such), one time took on Herod the ruler over an issue that was completely legal. Herod was sleeping with his brother's wife, Herodias. (see Luke 3:19). John the Baptist publicly rebuked him. I guess you would take issue with that.
first of all, I don't care who Jesus said was the best Jew, because I don't consider Jesus one of the best Jews either. He's a prophet who had his time and it's done now, according to my religion and beliefs. So, your insistence on throwing Jesus in my face to make a point is beyond ridiculous, not to mention demonstrative of your utter lack of respect for people with a different world view than your own. As for your particular question, I suppose he was sort of a busy body as far as that goes, but I really don't care whatsoever about what theoretical biblical figures did or didn't do.
You see, this whole thrust of trying to quiet still, lone voices is the liberals' greatest thrust vs. living lives of accountability. In a word, it's what one Christian thinker has called "safism"--the attempt to make the world safe for all atheists.
ah, i was wondering how long it would take you to infer I was speaking like a liberal. Well let me ask you this - why SHOULDN'T the world be safe for atheists? I don't think they have a right to remove all signs of Christianity from the public square as they like to do, but I don't see a reason they shouldn't be safe and basically left alone. I only object to those atheists who try to force everyone to act like atheists, much as I object to Christians who try to force everyone to act like Christians. YOu have decided your morality is the compass by which we should all live, and that's your right. It is not your right, however, to punish people for actions you and only you disapprove of. Even John the Baptist only rebuked Herod - he didn't get him fired.