| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"karl" |
| Date: |
03 Nov 2005 02:33:47 PM |
| Object: |
reclaiming values |
The "values" plea is often code for christian religious piety. In bemoaning
Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or the excessive violence of Grand
Theft Auto it seems that the secular response is a reflexive defence of
freedom of expression - a position I am sympathetic to. However:
It bothers me that the "values" position seems by default ceded to theists.
Shouldn't there be a secular, non-religious alternative so that one can be
critical of the JJ and GTA culture without falling into the religion camp?
For politicians as well "values" is often code for christian religious
belief. wouldn't it be better to have the politicians more out in the open
vis a vis their religious beliefs? I'd rather know for certain that the
politician is swearing on the bible out of devote belief rather than needing
to divine whether they are doing so for show.
.
|
|
| User: "Divin Marquis" |
|
| Title: Re: reclaiming values |
03 Nov 2005 08:15:42 PM |
|
|
Le Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:33:47 -0500, karl a écrit :
It bothers me that the "values" position seems by default ceded to
theists.
Shouldn't there be a secular, non-religious alternative so that one can be
critical of the JJ and GTA culture without falling into the religion camp?
What's the problem with the GTA culture? It's the Gitmo culture that
bothers me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: reclaiming values |
04 Nov 2005 04:06:43 PM |
|
|
"Divin Marquis" <postmaster@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.03.20.15.42.51826@127.0.0.1...
Le Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:33:47 -0500, karl a écrit :
It bothers me that the "values" position seems by default ceded to
theists.
Shouldn't there be a secular, non-religious alternative so that one can
be
critical of the JJ and GTA culture without falling into the religion
camp?
What's the problem with the GTA culture? It's the Gitmo culture that
bothers me.
Missing the point as well.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "MarkA" |
|
| Title: Re: reclaiming values |
03 Nov 2005 06:52:22 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:33:47 -0500, karl wrote:
The "values" plea is often code for christian religious piety. In
bemoaning
Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or the excessive violence of Grand
Theft Auto it seems that the secular response is a reflexive defence of
freedom of expression - a position I am sympathetic to. However:
It bothers me that the "values" position seems by default ceded to
theists.
Shouldn't there be a secular, non-religious alternative so that one can be
critical of the JJ and GTA culture without falling into the religion camp?
What would be the rational for a secular objection? Do you believe that
playing GTA is going to make your kid go out and steal cars and shoot
hookers? Do you think that JJ flashing a little titty is more obscene
than sending 2,000 young men to their deaths so that the oil company CEO's
can retire richer than they were to begin with? What the religious riech
finds offensive usually doesn't bother me at all.
For politicians as well "values" is often code for christian religious
belief. wouldn't it be better to have the politicians more out in the
open vis a vis their religious beliefs? I'd rather know for certain that
the politician is swearing on the bible out of devote belief rather than
needing to divine whether they are doing so for show.
I agree. Especially when they talk about "Family Values." It is obvious
that they don't mean compassion, respect, tolerance for diversity,
recognition of the basic dignity of all people...all the things I would
mean by the phrase "Family Values." As far as politicians are concerned,
they are *always* doing *everything* for the sake of their image. If they
weren't, they wouldn't be in politics very long.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
.
|
|
|
| User: "karl" |
|
| Title: Re: reclaiming values |
04 Nov 2005 04:06:16 PM |
|
|
"MarkA" <manthony@stopspam.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.11.03.18.52.19.726077@stopspam.net...
On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:33:47 -0500, karl wrote:
The "values" plea is often code for christian religious piety. In
bemoaning
Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or the excessive violence of Grand
Theft Auto it seems that the secular response is a reflexive defence of
freedom of expression - a position I am sympathetic to. However:
It bothers me that the "values" position seems by default ceded to
theists.
Shouldn't there be a secular, non-religious alternative so that one can
be
critical of the JJ and GTA culture without falling into the religion
camp?
What would be the rational for a secular objection? Do you believe that
playing GTA is going to make your kid go out and steal cars and shoot
hookers?
Some might. Some may just object to certain content being prevalent via the
common good of broadcast.
Do you think that JJ flashing a little titty is more obscene
than sending 2,000 young men to their deaths so that the oil company CEO's
can retire richer than they were to begin with?
This is you missing the point completely. It isn't about what is more
offensive to thee or me. It is about ceding opposition to the deists. If you
don't find "X" objectionable or "Y" to be more objectionable that is your
prerogative.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
