Posted on 08/09/2002 10:52:13 PM PDT by jennyp
I'm more than happy to recommend some titles, if you wish. In the meantime, I'll sharpen my arrows in order to demonstrate that fascism is tied to Christianity in exactly the same manner as communism is tied to atheism...
No. My moral views stay more-or-less constant. Whenever the holders of power decide to take our rights, they can. That doesn't mean their actions are moral, and that certainly doesn't mean we couldn't or shouldn't resist.
It would also be morally correct for the Majority of Muslims to kill all non-Muslims and Morally correct for the USA to fight that cause.
In many Muslims' eyes, militant Jihad is seen as highly moral. It is, in fact, a God-ordained commandment. In my eyes as a secular American, it is completely immoral.
Our views are clearly incompatible, and I have no problem imposing my morality on them, using all the coercive force in the world.
Did you read my note at the bottom of the post? I was merely trying to establish ‘why’ the association occurs.
In addition to the Origin of Species, I've also read Das Kapital. Both are great books. Marx was, without a doubt, one of the greatest philosophers of history in the Western tradition. Was he wrong? Yes. But that doesn't diminish his intellect. I'd have been honored to receive praise from him.
A thief, murderer, etc… may be intelligent but he/she is using their resources for evil. It comes down to a man’s intentions. To quote Batman, “If only they would use their powers for good”.
Morality is either set in stone or in a constant state of flux dictated by man and his surroundings.
Now, I must attend to the Bat-Fax.
What is this:
“Nothing we do is wrong since we are merely matter plus chemical reactions and a substance is neither right nor wrong”
It’s the Riddler again, I must decipher this message… after dinner with the family, of course:)
Yes, my conception of morality differs from their's. I have no problem subjecting them to my (superior) will.
I'm not an ideologue. But don't mistake me for a nihilist; I have very strongly held beliefs.
You always have those in-alienable rights, regardless of whether you are oppressed or not. That is Morality. A standard that no man can change or remove. A level of life that cannot be reasoned away by intellectuals that have no concept of what they do not know. A force that gives the moral being to those that fight for freedom. A righteousness that prevails in all times and in all darkness.
Let me say that I am thankful that our men of war, our men of history were not the hopeless wanderers that you have become. I am thankful for the moral fiber that propels all righteous men forward into duty and honor. Honor to that morality, to those in-alienable rights handed down by the Creator. The Creator that make your life valuable enough to sacrifice theirs to protect.
Really...well if the majority of society, or at least the people with the guns, believe that you're a problem, then you probably will get killed. However, if the majority of society holds the Christian belief of respect for life, then I suppose you'd be in a better position, wouldn't you.
I mean, how do all you atheists stand living in a society that is 85% Christian? All that charitable giving, all that moral self-policing, the peace, the tranquility? How do you stand it?
Actually yes there was:
How do you establish a libertarian society when people can't agree on what "liberty" entails?
Well?
Sorry, but those aren't source materials, they are merely propoganda put together by a lawyer in a civil case. The numbers are exagerated and unsourced, furthermore the language is vitriolic; it makes no pretense of objectivity.
Certainly the Spaniards were brutal bastards, but holding Christianity complicit in their deeds is a stretch, if anything the few padres that accompanied the consquistidors exercised as much of a brake on blood lust as was possible.
This piece of tripe also makes no distinction between wars, pestilence and out right murder. To lump the entire history of the New World under the title Genocide is not history but political agenda. I'm surprized you've fallen for that old canard.
But most egregiously you, and others, have gone even further by blaming Christianity for these deaths. I fully expect you, and them, to turn over your homes and property and expatriate yourselves back to your point of origin. Enough w/ this foolish posturing and back up your principles!
My point is made. Thank you.
Strictly speaking, morality is relative to human nature, since its purpose is to provide a consistent framework for action that allows for humanity to flourish (to "maximize our eudaimonia", as Aristotle might say). But since human nature doesn't change, morality is essentially absolute. The problem is, the optimum moral framework for enhancing eudaimonia is not self-evident. Thus the need for competition between societies & civilizations, and for federalism, for that matter, and the need to learn from history.
There are some Truths that have become self-evident facts over time, in the sense that today it would be perverse to withhold assent: The right of free speech, the right of an individual to self-defense, the right of a massive group to self-defense against the government itself (i.e. secession), the right to contract, the prohibition against slavery (including slavery to enforce a contract), a representative form of government, etc. These things are locked in place in a Constitution, and only an overwhelming supermajority can change them.
In fact, the need for a gov't-power-limiting constitution itself is self-evident to any student of history.
On the other end, questions like "what goods & services should be produced?" can only be answered by the marketplace - which is a framework where both majorities and dedicated minorities can find satisfaction.
In between these two, you have the laws that get passed by Congress & by the individual states. When it's running well, the best & most universal ideas take over the meme pool in a process of Lamarckian evolution. You end up with a lot of laws that are imposed on us that are (indirectly) supported by the majority, but at least they had to endure some competition in the marketplace of ideas to achieve their dominance.
It's very messy. But until you can prove to me that this supernatural Authority Figure person actually exists, as opposed to being someone you merely hope exists for the sake of society, then it's the best framework we can hope for.
My post wasn't directed so much at you, but at the great multitudes here who wouldn't make that distinction.
It comes down to a man’s intentions. To quote Batman, “If only they would use their powers for good”.
But as the Incredible Hulk might have said, "No." I don't buy the argument that Karl Marx set out to be evil. I think he had the best of all possible intentions. He just got it wrong (for a multitude of reasons - I'd go into it here, but I'd be preaching to the choir).
“Nothing we do is wrong since we are merely matter plus chemical reactions and a substance is neither right nor wrong”
Jeepers Batman, that is some riddle. But I'd be hard-pressed to argue that there is no right-or-wrong. There is. You're just never going to get two people (let alone six billion) to agree on precisely what "right" is and what "wrong" is. That's a sad fact of life.
Pretty much what I said about a society based in liberty. Initiating force is the root of the problem. Restrain the initiators of force. Others can live in peace. It took Christians like yourself a long time to learn that. Many still have a problem with it.
You sure you want to stick by this gem? I can name a few famous students of history that came to entirely different conclusions. OF course just as Morally correct as yours.
Your system of morality seems to work. As long as you can dictate the base standard. What if Hitler was right? How can you know for sure?
Not very responsive to how to tell which of the various competing religions one should follow. However, it does seem morally relativistic. You have also not given any reason to choose one culture over another.
Sorry to butt in, but you commit the age-old fallacy of mixing up amorality and atheism. Many atheists are highly moral. I know I am (though you're free to argue that my morality is bunk). And as for charitable giving, I gave $475,000 to favorite charities last year, although I don't consider that to be an especially moral action. Moral atheists do what we feel is right, not what we've been ordered to do by an angry Lord.
And now we learn.......
As you are no doubt aware, abortion is one of the most vexing issues we face. There are many differences of opinion. Many thoughts regarding pregnancy, birth control, and sexuality are in a state of flux.
In difficult situations, some compromises may be necessary. You, of course, need a rationale for according "life" status to a fertilized ovum. It is indeed interesting how you spend the majority of your effort seeking to divide rather than finding common ground.
"living/morphing constitutionalists---
EVO science/RELIGION!!
Look at Ashcroft/Bork/Thomas---TEST--gauntlet for office!
"Pulling it all together, what we have right here in our own country are all of the ingredients necessary for a totalitarian police state. We have a federal government that nobody in his right mind would trust, which lies to us incessantly, uses illegal force against its citizens with impunity, and collaborates with totalitarian dictators under cover of a massive propaganda campaign conducted by our supposedly free press."
"Our major information media are dominated by closet totalitarians who pay lip service to democracy while... covertly promoting---the interests of communist despots."
"The political opposition is made up largely of cowards who are so intimidated by our totalitarian propaganda media they are unable to offer effective resistance to even the most egregious violations of civil liberties by the corrupt Clinton regime. They have become, in the fullest sense of the term, Weimar Republicans. And finally, we have that which makes it all possible, a listless, docile, dumbed-down public who gape mindlessly at all of the above phenomena without the slightest glimmer of comprehension, and prattle the latest propaganda cliches dumped into their empty heads by the mainstream media."
"The Elian affair has truly given us a glimpse into the abyss of tyranny. The message that comes through loud and clear is that the system isn't working. The question that remains to be answered is whether we still possess the intelligence and fortitude necessary to fix it."
Edward Zehr(deceased...nov2001) can(not) be reached at ezehr@capaccess.org
Published in the May. 22, 2000 issue of The Washington Weekly(defunct)
Copyright 2000 The Washington Weekly.
Now Free Access to All Stories at http://www.federal.com
EVO FR taliban!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.