| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Words Of Truth" |
| Date: |
25 Feb 2005 02:50:07 AM |
| Object: |
The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Dennis Prager
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050104.shtml
With this first column of 2005, I inaugurate a periodic series of
columns devoted to explaining and making the case for what are called
Judeo-Christian values.
There is an epic battle taking place in the world over what value
system humanity will embrace. There are essentially three competitors:
European secularism, American Judeo-Christianity and Islam. I have
described this battle in previous columns.
Now, it is time to make the case for Judeo-Christian, specifically
biblical, values. I believe they are the finest set of values to guide
the lives of both individuals and societies. Unfortunately, they are
rarely rationally explained -- even among Jewish and Christian
believers, let alone to nonbelievers and members of other faiths.
So this is the beginning of an admittedly ambitious project. Vast
numbers of people are profoundly disoriented as to what is good and
what is bad. Just to give one example: Take the moral confusion over
the comparative worth of human and animal life.
The majority of American students I have asked since 1970 whether they
would save their dog or a stranger have voted against the stranger.
A Tucson, Ariz., woman in late 2004 sent firefighters into her burning
home telling them that her three babies were inside. The babies for
whom the firemen risked their lives were the woman's three cats.
The best known animal rights organization, People for the Ethical
Treatment of Animals (PETA), funded by the best educated in our
society, has launched an international campaign titled "Holocaust on
your plate," which equates the barbecuing of millions of chickens with
the cremating of millions of Jews in the Holocaust. To PETA and its
supporters, there is no difference between chicken life and human
life.
Only a very morally confused age could produce so many people who do
not recognize the immeasurable distance between human and animal
worth. We live in that age.
We do in large measure because values based on God and the Bible have
been replaced by secular values. The result was predicted by the
British thinker G.K. Chesterton at the turn of the 20th century: "When
people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing -- they
believe in anything."
Yes, the moral record of Christian Europe is a mixed one -- especially
vis a vis its one continuous religious minority -- Jews. And one has
to be quite naive to believe that belief in God and the Bible
guarantees moral clarity, let alone moral behavior.
But Chesterton was right. The collapse of Christianity in Europe led
to the horrors of Nazism and Communism. And to the moral confusions of
the present -- such as the moral equation of the free United States
with the totalitarian Soviet Union, or of life-loving Israel with its
death-loving enemies.
The oft cited charge that religion has led to more wars and evil than
anything else is a widely believed lie. Secular successors to
Christianity have slaughtered and enslaved more people than all
religions in history (though significant elements within a
non-Judeo-Christian religion, Islam, slaughter and enslave today, and
if not stopped in Sudan and elsewhere could match Nazism or
Communism).
In fact, it was a secular Jew, the great German Jewish poet Heinrich
Heine, who understood that despite its anti-Semitism and other moral
failings, Christianity in Europe prevented the wholesale slaughter of
human beings that became routine with Christianity's demise. In 1834,
99 years before Hitler and the Nazis rose to power, Heine warned:
A drama will be enacted in Germany compared to which the French
Revolution will seem harmless and carefree. Christianity restrained
the martial ardor for a time but it did not destroy it; once the
restraining talisman [the cross] is shattered, savagery will rise
again. . . .
What is needed today is a rationally and morally persuasive case for
embracing the values that come from the Bible. This case must be more
compelling than the one made for anti-biblical values that is
presented throughout the Western world's secular educational
institutions and media (news media, film and television).
That is what I intend to do. Events in the news will compel columns on
those events, but I do not believe that anything I can do with my life
can match the importance of making the case for guiding one's life and
one's society by the values of the Bible. As a Jew, by "biblical" I am
referring to the Old Testament, but this should pose no problem to
Christian readers, since this is the first part of their Bible as
well. Indeed, as the greatest Jewish thinker, Maimonides, pointed out
over 800 years ago, it is primarily Christians who have spread
knowledge of the Jews' Bible to the human race.
The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part II
For those who subscribe to Judeo-Christian values, right and wrong,
good and evil, are derived from God, not from reason alone, nor from
the human heart, the state or through majority rule.
Though most college-educated Westerners never hear the case for the
need for God-based morality because of the secular outlook that
pervades modern education and the media, the case is both clear and
compelling: If there is no transcendent source of morality (morality
is the word I use for the standard of good and evil), "good" and
"evil" are subjective opinions, not objective realities.
In other words, if there is no God who says, "Do not murder" ("Do not
kill" is a mistranslation of the Hebrew which, like English, has two
words for homicide), murder is not wrong. Many people may think it is
wrong, but that is their opinion, not objective moral fact. There are
no moral "facts" if there is no God; there are only moral opinions.
Years ago, I debated this issue at Oxford with Jonathan Glover,
currently the professor of ethics at King's College, University of
London, and one of the leading atheist moralists of our time.
Because he is a man of rare intellectual honesty, he acknowledged that
without God, morality is subjective. He is one of the few secularists
who do.
This is the reason for the moral relativism -- "What I think is right
is right for me, what you think is right is right for you" -- that
pervades modern society. The secularization of society is the primary
reason vast numbers of people believe, for example, that "one man's
terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"; why the best educated
were not able say that free America was a more moral society than the
totalitarian Soviet Union; why, in short, deep moral confusion
afflicted the 20th century and continues in this century.
That is why The New York Times, the voice of secular moral relativism,
was so repulsed by President Ronald Reagan's declaration that the
Soviet Union was an "evil empire." The secular world -- especially its
left -- fears and rejects the language of good and evil because it
smacks of religious values and violates their moral relativism. It is
perhaps the major difference between America and Europe. As a New York
Times article on European-American differences noted last year,
"Americans are widely regarded as more comfortable with notions of
good and evil, right and wrong, than Europeans. . . . " No wonder.
America is a Judeo-Christian society; Europe (and the American
Democratic Party) is largely secular.
In the late 1970s, in a public interview in Los Angeles, I asked one
of the leading secular liberal thinkers of the past generation,
Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr., if he would
say that the United States was a morally superior society to that of
the Soviet Union. Even when I repeated the question, and clarified
that I readily acknowledged the existence of good individuals in the
Soviet Union and bad ones in America, he refused to do so.
A major reason for the left's loathing of George W. Bush is his use of
moral language -- such as in his widely condemned description of the
regimes of North Korea, Iran and Iraq as an "axis of evil." These
people reject the central Judeo-Christian value of the existence of
objective good and evil and our obligation to make such judgments.
Secularism has led to moral confusion, which in turn has led to moral
paralysis.
If you could not call the Soviet Union an "evil empire" or the
Iranian, North Korean and Iraqi regimes an "evil axis," you have
rendered the word "evil" useless. And indeed it is not used in
sophisticated secular company -- except in reference to those who do
use it (usually religious Christians and Jews).
Is abortion morally wrong? To the secular world, the answer is "It's
between a woman and her physician." There is no clearer expression of
moral relativism: Every woman determines whether abortion is moral. On
the other hand, to the individual with Judeo-Christian values, it is
not between anyone and anyone else. It is between society and God.
Even among religious people who differ in their reading of God's will,
it is still never merely "between a woman and her physician."
And to those who counter these arguments for God-based morality with
the question, "Whose God?" the answer is the God who revealed His
moral will in the Old Testament, which Jews and Christians -- and no
other people -- regard as divine revelation.
The best-known verse in the Bible is "Love your neighbor as yourself"
(Leviticus 19:18). It is a reflection of the secular age in which we
live that few people are aware that the verse concludes with the
words, "I am God." Though entirely secularized in common parlance, the
greatest of the ethical principles comes from God. Otherwise it is
just another man-made suggestion, no more compelling than "Cross at
the green, not in between."
Judeo-Christian values: part III
Those who do not believe that moral values must come from the Bible or
be based upon God's moral instruction argue that they have a better
source for values: human reason.
In fact, the era that began the modern Western assault on
Judeo-Christian values is known as the Age of Reason. That age ushered
in the modern secular era, a time when the men of "the Enlightenment"
hoped they would be liberated from the superstitious shackles of
religious faith and rely on reason alone. Reason, without God or the
Bible, would guide them into an age of unprecedented moral greatness.
As it happened, the era following the decline of religion in Europe
led not to unprecedented moral greatness, but to unprecedented
cruelty, superstition, mass murder and genocide. But believers in
reason without God remain unfazed. Secularists have ignored the vast
amount of evidence showing that evil on a grand scale follows the
decline of Judeo-Christian religion.
There are four primary problems with reason divorced from God as a
guide to morality.
The first is that reason is amoral. Reason is only a tool and,
therefore, can just as easily argue for evil as for good. If you want
to achieve good, reason is immensely helpful; if you want to do evil,
reason is immensely helpful. But reason alone cannot determine which
you choose. It is sometimes rational to do what is wrong and sometimes
rational to do what is right.
It is sheer nonsense -- nonsense believed by the godless -- that
reason always suggests the good. Mother Teresa devoted her life to
feeding and clothing the dying in Calcutta. Was this decision derived
entirely from reason? To argue that it was derived from reason alone
is to argue that every person whose actions are guided by reason will
engage in similar self-sacrifice, and that anyone who doesn't live a
Mother Teresa-like life is acting irrationally.
Did those non-Jews in Europe who risked their lives to save a Jew
during the Holocaust act on the dictates of reason? In a lifetime of
studying those rescuers' motives, I have never come across a single
instance of an individual who saved Jews because of reason. In fact,
it was irrational for any non-Jews to risk their lives to save Jews.
Another example of reason's incapacity to lead to moral conclusions:
On virtually any vexing moral question, there is no such a thing as a
[missing] purely rational viewpoint. What is the purely rational view
on the morality of abortion? Of public nudity? Of the value of an
animal versus that of a human? Of the war in Iraq? Of capital
punishment for murder? On any of these issues, reason alone can argue
effectively for almost any position. Therefore, what determines
anyone's moral views are, among other things, his values -- and values
are beyond reason alone (though one should be able to rationally
explain and defend those values). If you value the human fetus, most
abortions are immoral; if you only value the woman's view of the value
of the fetus, all abortions are moral.
The second problem with reason alone as a moral guide is that we are
incapable of morally functioning on the basis of reason alone. Our
passions, psychology, values, beliefs, emotions and experiences all
influence the ways in which even the most rational person determines
what is moral and whether to act on it.
Third, the belief in reason alone is itself based on an irrational
belief -- that people are basically good. You have to believe that
people are basically good in order to believe that human reason will
necessarily lead to moral conclusions.
Fourth, even when reason does lead to a moral conclusion, it in no way
compels acting on that conclusion. Let's return to the example of the
non-Jew in Nazi-occupied Europe. Imagine that a Jewish family knocks
on his door, asking to be hidden. Imagine further that on rational
grounds alone (though I cannot think of any), the non-Jew decides that
the moral thing to do is hide the Jews. Will he act on this decision
at the risk of his life? Not if reason alone guides him. People don't
risk their lives for strangers on the basis of reason. They do so on
the basis of faith -- faith in something that far transcends reason
alone.
Does all this mean that reason is useless? God forbid. Reason and
rational thought are among the hallmarks of humanity's potential
greatness. But alone, reason is largely worthless in the greatest
quest of all -- making human beings kinder and more decent. To
accomplish that, God, a divinely revealed manual and reason are all
necessary. And even then there are no guarantees.
But if you want a quick evaluation of where godless reason leads, look
at the irrationality and moral confusion that permeate the embodiment
of reason without God -- your local university.
The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part IV
Would you first save the dog you love or a stranger if both were
drowning? The answer depends on your value system.
One of the most obvious and significant differences between secular
and Judeo-Christian values concerns human worth. One of the great
ironies of secular humanism is that it devalues the worth of human
beings. As ironic as it may sound, the God-based Judeo-Christian value
system renders man infinitely more valuable and significant than any
humanistic value system.
The reason is simple: Only if there is a God who created man is man
worth anything beyond the chemicals of which he is composed.
Judeo-Christian religions hold that human beings are created in the
image of God. If we are not, we are created in the image of carbon
dioxide. Which has a higher value is not difficult to determine.
Contemporary secular society has rendered human beings less
significant than at any time in Western history.
First, the secular denial that human beings are created in God's image
has led to humans increasingly being equated with animals. That is why
over the course of 30 years of asking high school seniors if they
would first try to save their dog or a stranger, two-thirds have voted
against the person. They either don't know what they would do or
actually vote for their dog. Many adults now vote similarly.
Why? There are two reasons. One is that with the denial of the
authority of higher values such as biblical teachings, people
increasingly make moral decisions on the basis of how they feel. And
since probably all people feel more for their dog than they do for a
stranger, many people without a moral instruction manual simply choose
to do what they feel.
The other reason is that secular values provide no basis for elevating
human worth over that of an animal. Judeo-Christian values posit that
human beings, not animals, are created in God's image and, therefore,
human life is infinitely more sacred than animal life.
That is why people estranged from Judeo-Christian values (including
some Christians) support programs such as "Holocaust on Your Plate,"
the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaign that
teaches that there is no difference between the slaughtering of
chickens and the slaughtering of the Jews in the Holocaust. A human
and a chicken are of equal worth.
That is why a Tucson, Ariz., woman last year screamed to firefighters
that her "babies" were in her burning house. Thinking that the woman's
children were trapped inside, the firemen risked their lives to save
the woman's three cats.
Those inclined to dismiss these examples as either theoretical (the
dog-stranger question) or extreme (the Tucson mother of cats) need to
confront the very real question of animal experimentation to save
human lives. More and more people believe as PETA does that even if we
could find a cure for cancer or AIDS, it would be wrong to experiment
on animals. (The defense that research with computers can teach all
that experiments on animals teach is a lie.) In fact, many animal
rights advocates oppose killing a pig to obtain a heart valve to save
a human life.
Belief in human-animal equivalence inevitably follows the death of
Judeo-Christian values, and it serves not so much to elevate animal
worth as to reduce human worth. Those who oppose vivisection and
believe it is immoral to kill animals for any reason, including
eating, should reflect on this: While there are strong links between
cruelty to animals and cruelty to humans, there are no links between
kindness to animals and kindness to humans. Kindness to animals has no
effect on a person's treatment of people. The Nazis, the cruelest
group in modern history, were also the most pro-animal rights group
prior to the contemporary period. They outlawed experimentation on
animals and made legal experimentation on human beings.
The second reason that the breakdown of Judeo-Christian values leads
to a diminution of human worth is that if man was not created by God,
the human being is mere stellar dust -- and will come to be regarded
as such. Moreover, people are merely the products of random chance, no
more designed than a sand grain formed by water erosion. That is what
the creationism-evolution battle is ultimately about -- human worth.
One does not have to agree with creationists or deny all evolutionary
evidence to understand that the way evolution is taught, man is
rendered a pointless product of random forces -- unworthy of being
saved before one's hamster.
The case for Judeo-Christian values: Part V
Before continuing to make the case for Judeo-Christian values, it is
time to answer a question frequently posed by Jews and Christians as
well as others: How can there be such a thing as Judeo-Christian
values when Judaism and Christianity have different, sometimes
mutually exclusive, beliefs?
The most important answer is that beliefs and values are not the same
things.
Of course, Judaism and Christianity have some differing beliefs. If
they had the same beliefs, they would be the same religion. The very
term "Judeo-Christian" implies that the two are not the same. The two
religions have some differing beliefs and occasionally even some
different values.
For example, Christianity believes in a Trinity that Judaism does not
believe in. That is a major theological difference, but it has no
impact on values. Likewise, Christianity believes that the Messiah has
come, whereas Judaism believes that he has not yet come. As a Jewish
theologian, I am fascinated by theological differences among
religions. But I am far more preoccupied with real-life issues of good
and evil, and that is where Judeo-Christian values come in.
Both religions are based on the Old Testament, which Judaism and
Christianity hold to be divine or divinely inspired. Clearly, then,
they will share values -- unless one holds that the New Testament
rejects Old Testament values. But that is untenable since, in addition
to Christianity believing the Old Testament is God's word, Jesus was a
believing and practicing Jew. He would not practice a religion whose
values or Bible he rejected.
One way to understand Judeo-Christian values, therefore, is as values
that emanate from a Judeo-based Christianity. Christians have always
had the choice to reject the Jewish roots of Christianity (which, when
done, enabled Christian anti-Semitism), to ignore those roots, or to
celebrate and embrace them. American Christians have, more than any
other Christian group, opted for the latter.
For much of Christian history, the majority of Christians either
ignored or denied the Jewish origins of Christianity and the
Jewishness of Jesus and the Apostles. That is how many Christians were
able to rationalize their anti-Semitism, and that is why Europe
self-identified as "Christian," not as "Judeo-Christian" as America
has.
It is also true that as the centuries passed, some values
differences, not merely theological ones, did arise. But it is the
greatness of Judeo-Christian values that they combine the best of both
religious traditions and cast aside some of their weaker aspects.
For example, the Christian emphasis on faith above works led often to
faith without works. Meanwhile, the Jewish emphasis on works above
faith has led to many Jews abandoning God and valuing only works --
meaning, more often than not, the embracing of destructive secular
radical faiths.
Judeo-Christian values combine the two religions' strengths -- the
Jewish emphasis on moral works in this world with the Christian
emphasis on keeping God at the center of one's values and works.
Another example is the American Christian's ability to remain
God-centered and hold onto traditional beliefs while fully
participating in modern society. This has not generally been the case
in Jewish life. Over the centuries, God-centered and Torah-believing
Jews retreated from mainstream society. They did so because: 1)
anti-Semitism forced Jews into ghettos; 2) Jewish ritual laws
increasingly restricted contact with non-Jews; and 3) Jews are a
people, not just a religious group.
On the other hand, Jewish rituals have kept Judaism and the Jews
alive while the abandonment of ritual (for example, Sabbath
observance) has hurt Christianity. And Jewish peoplehood has ensured
action on behalf of persecuted fellow Jews while Christians usually
did little on behalf of persecuted fellow Christians -- as, for
example, those many Christians terribly persecuted under Communism;
the Copts in Egypt; the Maronite Catholics in Lebanon; and the
Christians of Sudan.
In sum, despite whatever differences they have, Jews and Christians
need each other and Judaism and Christianity need each other. The
Judeo-Christian values system has become a uniquely powerful moral
force. Among its many achievements is that it is the primary
contributor to America's greatness.
Liberal feeling vs. Judeo-Christian values: Part VI
With the decline of the authority of Judeo-Christian values in the
West, many people stopped looking to external sources of moral
standards in order to decide what is right and wrong. Instead of being
guided by God, the Bible and religion, great numbers -- in Western
Europe, the great majority -- have looked elsewhere for moral and
social guidelines.
For many millions in the twentieth century, those guidelines were
provided by Marxism, Communism, Fascism or Nazism. For many millions
today, those guidelines are … feelings. With the ascendancy of
leftist values that has followed the decline of Judeo-Christian
religion, personal feelings have supplanted universal standards. In
fact, feelings are the major unifying characteristic among
contemporary liberal positions.
Aside from reliance on feelings, how else can one explain a person
who believes, let alone proudly announces on a bumper sticker, that
"War is not the answer"? I know of no comparable conservative bumper
sticker that is so demonstrably false and morally ignorant. Almost
every great evil has been solved by war -- from slavery in America to
the Holocaust in Europe. Auschwitz was liberated by soldiers making
war, not by pacifists who would have allowed the Nazis to murder every
Jew in Europe.
The entire edifice of moral relativism, a foundation of leftist
ideology, is built on the notion of feelings deciding right and wrong.
One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
The animals-and-humans-are-equivalent movement is based entirely on
feelings. People see chickens killed and lobsters boiled, feel for the
animals, and shortly thereafter abandon thought completely, and equate
chicken and lobster suffering to that of a person under the same
circumstances.
The unprecedented support of liberals for radically redefining the
basic institution of society, marriage and the family is another a
product of feelings -- sympathy for homosexuals. Thinking through the
effects of such a radical redefinition on society and its children is
not a liberal concern.
The "self-esteem movement" -- now conceded to have been a great
producer of mediocrity and narcissism -- was entirely a liberal
invention based on feelings for kids.
The liberal preoccupation with whether America is loved or hated is
also entirely feelings-based. The Left wants to be loved; the
conservative wants to do what is right and deems world opinion fickle
at best and immoral at worst.
Sexual harassment laws have created a feelings-industrial complex.
The entire concept of "hostile work environment" is feelings based. If
one woman resents a swimsuit calendar on a co-worker's desk, laws have
now been passed whose sole purpose is to protect her from having
uncomfortable feelings.
For liberals, the entire worth of the human fetus is determined by
the mother's feelings. If she feels the nascent human life she is
carrying is worth nothing, it is worth nothing. If she feels it is
infinitely precious, it is infinitely precious.
Almost everything is affected by liberal feelings. For example,
liberal opposition to calling a Christmas party by its rightful name
is based on liberals' concern that non-Christians will feel bad. And
for those liberals, nothing else matters -- not the legitimate desire
of the vast majority of Americans to celebrate their holiday, let
alone the narcissism of those non-Christians "offended" by a Christmas
party.
And why do liberals continue to endorse race-based affirmative action
at universities despite the mounting evidence that it hurts blacks
more than it helps? Again, a major reason is feelings -- sympathy for
blacks and the historic racism African-Americans have endured.
Very often, liberals are far more concerned with purity of motive
than with moral results. That's why so many liberals still oppose the
liberation of Iraq -- so what if Iraqis risk their lives to vote? It's
George W. Bush's motives that liberals care about, not spreading
liberty in the Arab world.
Elevating motives above results is a significant part of liberalism.
What matters is believing that one is well intentioned -- that one
cares for the poor, hates racism, loathes inequality and loves peace.
Bi-lingual education hurts Latino children. But as a compassionate
person -- and "compassionate" is the self-definition of most liberals
-- that is not the liberal's real concern. His concern is with an
immigrant child's uncomfortable feelings when first immersed in
English.
Reliance on feelings in determining one's political and social
positions is the major reason young people tend to have liberal/left
positions -- they feel passionately but do not have the maturity to
question those passions. It is also one reason women, especially
single women, are more liberal than men -- it is women's nature to
rely on emotions when making decisions. (For those unused to anything
but adulation directed at the female of the human species, let me make
it clear that men, too, cannot rely on their nature, which leans
toward settling differences through raw physical power. Both sexes
have a lot of self-correcting to do.)
To be fair, feelings also play a major role in many conservatives'
beliefs. Patriotism is largely a feeling; religious faith is filled
with emotion, and religion has too often been dictated by emotion. But
far more conservative positions are based on "What is right?" rather
than on "How do I feel?" That is why a religious woman who is pregnant
but does not wish to be is far less likely to have an abortion than a
secular woman in the same circumstances. Her values are higher than
her feelings. And that, in a nutshell, is what our culture war is
about -- Judeo-Christian values versus liberal/leftist feelings.
.
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 07:38:54 PM |
|
|
"Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Dennis Prager
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050104.shtml
With this first column of 2005, I inaugurate a periodic series of
columns devoted to explaining and making the case for what are called
Judeo-Christian values.
There is an epic battle taking place in the world over what value
system humanity will embrace. There are essentially three competitors:
European secularism, American Judeo-Christianity and Islam. I have
described this battle in previous columns.
So why start over?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 09:53:48 PM |
|
|
Any sensible moral values can be observed without any reference to
mystical religious *****.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ike" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 06:57:56 PM |
|
|
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qisv119k36pign7lvphhf9s96p43hcb6i3@4ax.com...
Any sensible moral values can be observed without any reference to
mystical religious *****.
name a few.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
28 Feb 2005 12:26:10 AM |
|
|
"Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:o0uUd.7379$873.6403@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qisv119k36pign7lvphhf9s96p43hcb6i3@4ax.com...
Any sensible moral values can be observed without any reference to
mystical religious *****.
name a few.
Do you really need a god to tell you not to murder, rape or steal?
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mani Deli" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 11:27:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 28 Feb 2005 00:57:56 GMT, "Ike" <accordiondoc@mindspring.com>
wrote:
"Mani Deli" <mani@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:qisv119k36pign7lvphhf9s96p43hcb6i3@4ax.com...
Any sensible moral values can be observed without any reference to
mystical religious *****.
name a few.
You name them.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 05:18:10 AM |
|
|
"Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Dennis Prager
Who really ought to know better, since the term is pretty much an oxymoron,
promulgated by those who seek to eclipse Jewish ones.
Susan.
.
|
|
|
| User: "bam" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 11:13:08 AM |
|
|
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SPDTd.29672$uc.19665@trnddc01...
"Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Dennis Prager
Who really ought to know better, since the term is pretty much an
oxymoron, promulgated by those who seek to eclipse Jewish ones.
Susan.
What's funnier is that no one has the foggiest idea what Jewish values are.
We do know exactly, however what Christian values are.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 11:41:44 AM |
|
|
I think the term is judeo-christian values. I am not jewish so I can't
say what jewish values are. They are not much different than the
values I have. Jews were a comunity and they had values they lived by
as a comunity. Jesus just came along and wanted to change jewish
morals and make them apply to all who are alive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 01:05:56 PM |
|
|
"enki" <enki034@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1109353304.318073.192390@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
I think the term is judeo-christian values.
It is, but it's a misnomer.
I am not jewish so I can't
say what jewish values are.
They are not much different than the
values I have. Jews were a comunity and they had values they lived by
as a comunity. Jesus just came along and wanted to change jewish
morals and make them apply to all who are alive.
No, the people who built a religion around his name decided to take out
everything non-Jews found so hard about being Jewish, as well as make up
entirely new criteria for Moshiach to give their central figure a commaning
importance he didn't have.
Susan
.
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 12:59:47 PM |
|
|
OK, It did become Roman-Catholic. Look what Rome stood for. Still it
was an improvment. For the last 500 years people have been trying to
take the Roman out and get back to the basics of what Jesus Intended
which we have limited and possibly distorted information.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 05:07:31 PM |
|
|
Well if you do not know what Jewish values are, then you choose to be
ignorant of them
I know what Christian values are: Hypocrisy, Bigotry, Hate they
Neighbour, Hate the Sinner, and impose Christianity on everyone else.
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:DYITd.21053$hd6.17476@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
:
: "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
: news:SPDTd.29672$uc.19665@trnddc01...
: >
: > "Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
: >> Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
: >>
: >>
: >> Dennis Prager
: >
: > Who really ought to know better, since the term is pretty much an
: > oxymoron, promulgated by those who seek to eclipse Jewish ones.
: >
: > Susan.
:
: What's funnier is that no one has the foggiest idea what Jewish values
are.
: We do know exactly, however what Christian values are.
:
: BAM
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 01:32:58 AM |
|
|
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:qPOdnWz23ukyM4LfRVn-qw@comcast.com...
Well if you do not know what Jewish values are, then you choose to be
ignorant of them
Hammer? Meet Nailhead.
I know what Christian values are: Hypocrisy, Bigotry, Hate they
Neighbour, Hate the Sinner, and impose Christianity on everyone else.
Those are certainly *her* values.
Susan
"bam" <mcca5761@bellsouthblahblah.net> wrote in message
news:DYITd.21053$hd6.17476@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
:
: "Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
: news:SPDTd.29672$uc.19665@trnddc01...
: >
: > "Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: > news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
: >> Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
: >>
: >>
: >> Dennis Prager
: >
: > Who really ought to know better, since the term is pretty much an
: > oxymoron, promulgated by those who seek to eclipse Jewish ones.
: >
: > Susan.
:
: What's funnier is that no one has the foggiest idea what Jewish values
are.
: We do know exactly, however what Christian values are.
:
: BAM
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secular Fundamentalist" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 11:49:06 AM |
|
|
bam wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SPDTd.29672$uc.19665@trnddc01...
"Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Dennis Prager
Who really ought to know better, since the term is pretty much an
oxymoron, promulgated by those who seek to eclipse Jewish ones.
Susan.
What's funnier is that no one has the foggiest idea what Jewish values are.
We do know exactly, however what Christian values are.
Christians proselytise, Jews don't.
--
David Silverman F.L.A.H.N.
aa #2208
We are witnessing the collapse of intellect. Blame rests with a failure
to roundly repudiate existentialism.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 01:02:15 PM |
|
|
"Secular Fundamentalist" <moc.turtle@eltrut.com> wrote in message
news:eoednRvDhr6X-ILfRVnyuA@brightview.com...
bam wrote:
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SPDTd.29672$uc.19665@trnddc01...
"Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Dennis Prager
Who really ought to know better, since the term is pretty much an
oxymoron, promulgated by those who seek to eclipse Jewish ones.
Susan.
What's funnier is that no one has the foggiest idea what Jewish values
are.
I see "bam" is projecting her belligerent ignorance on everyone else.
We do know exactly, however what Christian values are.
Christians proselytise, Jews don't.
& Xians will be the first to scream that "they are the true XIans" & "those
others are false!"
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "enki" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 12:15:42 PM |
|
|
We are witnessing the collapse of intellect. Blame rests with a failure
to roundly repudiate existentialism.
I disagree, things have been worse. I don't think many people have
ever heard of existentialism and fewer even know what it is. I think
that the problem is moral relativism.It is not as bad as it is made out
to be. Some bad behavior gets alot of attention.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 05:01:19 PM |
|
|
In article <1109355342.132922.205850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"enki" <enki034@yahoo.com> wrote:
We are witnessing the collapse of intellect. Blame rests with a failure
to roundly repudiate existentialism.
I disagree, things have been worse. I don't think many people have
ever heard of existentialism and fewer even know what it is. I think
that the problem is moral relativism.It is not as bad as it is made out
to be. Some bad behavior gets alot of attention.
I am quite proud to be morally relativistic, thank you. It is absolutely
wrong to tell a lie can easily be relativistic by my choice to lie and
lie heavily if someone is about to kill me. I think it is okay,
acceptable, and right to lie in this situation.
Moral codes omit the impact of space and time on absolutes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 01:31:29 AM |
|
|
"Ron" <ro_is@home.com> wrote in message
news:ro_is-C9A9AD.18011925022005@news.isp.giganews.com...
In article <1109355342.132922.205850@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"enki" <enki034@yahoo.com> wrote:
We are witnessing the collapse of intellect. Blame rests with a failure
to roundly repudiate existentialism.
I disagree, things have been worse. I don't think many people have
ever heard of existentialism and fewer even know what it is. I think
that the problem is moral relativism.It is not as bad as it is made out
to be. Some bad behavior gets alot of attention.
I am quite proud to be morally relativistic, thank you. It is absolutely
wrong to tell a lie can easily be relativistic by my choice to lie and
lie heavily if someone is about to kill me. I think it is okay,
acceptable, and right to lie in this situation.
Normal people are moral relativists, because normal people make choices like
this every day.
"How does this dress look on me?"
a) "Hideous!"
b) "Not really your color" (when it's the fit that's really the culprit).
Susan
Moral codes omit the impact of space and time on absolutes.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 12:41:47 PM |
|
|
"Ron"
I am quite proud to be morally relativistic, thank you. It is absolutely
wrong to tell a lie can easily be relativistic by my choice to lie and
lie heavily if someone is about to kill me. I think it is okay,
acceptable, and right to lie in this situation.
Susan Cohen wrote:
Normal people are moral relativists, because normal people make choices like
this every day.
"How does this dress look on me?"
a) "Hideous!"
b) "Not really your color" (when it's the fit that's really the culprit).
Neither of you are talking about morality. You are talking about lying in self defense. That's survival. Your morality still dictates that lying is wrong even when your will to survive compromises your morals. The extent of this compromise reveals your weakness, not your morality.
A better example of moral relativity would be;
Your friend: "How does this dress look on me?"
You: "Not really your color."
Your enemy: "How does this dress look on me?"
You: "Hideous."
As we can see in this case, moral relativism requires you to lie to your friends, act harmful to your enemies, and offer weak and deceitful arguments that you actually possess morals at all. Bad way to go. Why not just confirm morality in the clearest way possible and tell it like it is?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 07:54:52 PM |
|
|
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <cut-out@gmx.net:n0.spam>:
...
A better example of moral relativity would be;
Your friend: "How does this dress look on me?"
You: "Not really your color."
Your enemy: "How does this dress look on me?"
You: "Hideous."
...
No, you say "Wonderful. It's perfect for you."
So truth-telling has absolutely positive moral value, does
it? It seems to me that it wouldn't be very hard to set up
numerous scenarios where telling the truth would lead to
mortal harm.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
28 Feb 2005 12:27:46 AM |
|
|
"G*rd*n" <gcf@panix.com> wrote in message
news:cvttlc$3md$1@reader2.panix.com...
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <cut-out@gmx.net:n0.spam>:
...
A better example of moral relativity would be;
Your friend: "How does this dress look on me?"
You: "Not really your color."
Your enemy: "How does this dress look on me?"
You: "Hideous."
...
No, you say "Wonderful. It's perfect for you."
So truth-telling has absolutely positive moral value, does
it?
I know I disagree.
It seems to me that it wouldn't be very hard to set up
numerous scenarios where telling the truth would lead to
mortal harm.
Well, I was thinking off the top of my head & trying to keep it simple.
Now, however, I am just praying that the little one gets tired enough for
*me* to be able to go to sleep, so thinking of anything like what you
describe above is pretty much out of the question.
Susan
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Telling |
28 Feb 2005 09:37:44 PM |
|
|
...
G*rd*n wrote:
So truth-telling has absolutely positive moral value, does
it? It seems to me that it wouldn't be very hard to set up
numerous scenarios where telling the truth would lead to
mortal harm.
...
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <cut-out@gmx.net:n0spam.net>:
First off, I find it fascinating that you've chosen to challenge me on
this particular point. I trust it's for good reason.
"Opposition is true friendship." -- William Blake
Secondly, why would you compare 'mortal harm' with morality?
To emphasize the gravity of the question.
And, yes, truth-telling has absolutely positive moral value. Why
wouldn't it? The only case where truth-telling leads to harm is when a
previous greater lie has been told and believed. Maybe these numerous
scenarios of yours will shed light on my fallacy.
Here's a scenario from real life. Once upon a time, there
was a family of Puerto Ricans which included at least one
brother, Ricardo, who enjoyed the use of illegal drugs, and
another brother, Esteban, who was somewhat retarded and perhaps
weak-willed. There came a day when the police needed to ramp
up their drug arrest numbers. However, they knew better than
to go after Ricardo, who was prudent enough not be be easy to
catch. Instead, they went to Esteban. Esteban told them the
truth -- who was using what, where when and how, and how to
catch them at it. Based on the truth, the police then arrested
Ricardo and several of his associates, and sent them to jail
for long prison terms. While in jail, Ricardo, who was small
and cute, was raped several times, and as a resulted was
infected with HIV. He developed AIDS and died a few years
later. Ricardo had a wife and two children. Some hard guys
believed that he was responsible for the bust, which in a way
was true, so they shot and killed his wife. The children were
raised, pretty much on Welfare, by two of the surviving
brothers. There is nothing in this story but the telling of
truth.
Gordon, I've always thought that our ideologies differed not in outcome,
but rather in method -- namely my hypocritical optimism in favor of
leadership. To me this seems like a petty difference given the far
right extreme context of the usual usenet debate. I find it hard to
believe that you have entered this debate on the side on moral relativism.
What value does moral relativism hold for anarchy? I just don't see it.
That's an odd question. I don't know if anarchy is enough of
a coherent thing to hold values, other than those of which it
immediately consists, like personal freedom. As one might
expect there is great disagreement as to what contributes to
its aims. Some even value capitalism.
The values of anarchy -- freedom, equality and peace -- are
simply things that I happen to prefer. I don't know if they
are best for everyone. I do think that if the human race
doesn't start to practice them pretty soon, it will destroy
itself, but maybe that's what people want -- in which case,
they'll be very happy with the Götterdämmerung they produce,
and then in God's or whatever's good time some other species
will come along that's maybe a little bit smarter. It could
really be a big improvement. Can't you just see intelligent
roaches digging up an SUV and scratching their antenna?
More on opposition: One of the reasons Usenet seems so right-
wing is that people divide off into teams, and team sports
are formally right-wing: you're on one team or the other,
the individual is subordinated to the group, there are
hierarchies and pecking orders and team spirit and discipline,
and winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. So if all
the lefties band together on Usenet to oppose the righties,
they've effectively denied their own principles. And for
what? Who cares if one team or the other wins a round on the
Net? Plus, the focus on opposition forces every discussion
into a race to the bottom, rhetorically speaking, since all
the differences are so fundamental. If you want something
more intelligent and subtle than the primordial grunting we
normally observe, you must argue with those who agree with
you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gabrielle Rapagnetta" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Telling |
05 Mar 2005 02:13:36 PM |
|
|
Gabrielle Rapagnetta:
...
And, yes, truth-telling has absolutely positive moral value. Why
wouldn't it? The only case where truth-telling leads to harm is when a
previous greater lie has been told and believed. Maybe these numerous
scenarios of yours will shed light on my fallacy.
G*rd*n wrote:
Here's a scenario from real life. Once upon a time, there
was a family of Puerto Ricans which included at least one
brother, Ricardo, who enjoyed the use of illegal drugs, and
another brother, Esteban, who was somewhat retarded and perhaps
weak-willed. There came a day when the police needed to ramp
up their drug arrest numbers. However, they knew better than
to go after Ricardo, who was prudent enough not be be easy to
catch. Instead, they went to Esteban. Esteban told them the
truth -- who was using what, where when and how, and how to
catch them at it. Based on the truth, the police then arrested
Ricardo and several of his associates, and sent them to jail
for long prison terms. While in jail, Ricardo, who was small
and cute, was raped several times, and as a resulted was
infected with HIV. He developed AIDS and died a few years
later. Ricardo had a wife and two children. Some hard guys
believed that he was responsible for the bust, which in a way
was true, so they shot and killed his wife. The children were
raised, pretty much on Welfare, by two of the surviving
brothers. There is nothing in this story but the telling of
truth.
I see at least two monstrous lies in that story, both taking the form of self-deceit. We have the police who have convinced themselves that they are serving the public when in actuality they are serving a system which has largely failed the public. Yet they persist with their bust-by-numbers scheme regardless of the human consequences, regardless of the effect on crime rates, public safety, prison populations, broken families, and regardless of justice.
We also have the hard guys, the drug dealers who lied to themselves about the nature of trust. They mistakenly blame others for their own incompetencies. Had they taken responsibility for their own nefarious dealings they would not have felt the need to take revenge upon Ricardo's family.
The only reason why lying appears to be Esteban's correct moral choice is because we know that the other characters in this story will almost certainly make immoral decisions based upon their self-deceit. It is a tragedy that Esteban's truth-telling is insufficient to counter the deceptions of those around him, but I think my case still holds that, overall, honesty holds absolutely positive moral value.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta:
What value does moral relativism hold for anarchy? I just don't see it.
G*rd*n wrote:
That's an odd question. I don't know if anarchy is enough of
a coherent thing to hold values, other than those of which it
immediately consists, like personal freedom. As one might
expect there is great disagreement as to what contributes to
its aims. Some even value capitalism.
I think I know why you consider that an odd question. It's because I'm looking for a path to anarchy while you believe there is only realization. For those of us who believe there is some method which will bring us closer to anarchy we can rule out moral relativism as a useful tool. Moral relativism is perhaps humanity's greatest rationalization for war, inequality, and greed. After the war, after the subjugation, no one ever looks back and asks, "so, uh, was all that questionable stuff we did actually moral?". Instead we practice the precise opposite and erase the losers from our history books.
But even for those who believe anarchy can be nothing more than a realization, I still do not understand the usefulness of moral relativity or selective dishonesty. If you are lying to preserve your freedom then you were never really free to begin with, were you?
The values of anarchy -- freedom, equality and peace -- are
simply things that I happen to prefer. I don't know if they
are best for everyone.
[...]
I share those particular values and I would add honesty to the list and point out that all these values face similar problems. Just as your story above told of some disastrous consequences of truth-telling, we often hear stories of the disastrous consequences of freedom, equality, and peace. On usenet people are particularly fond of challenging the absolutism of these values with a few of their consequences; slavery, statist intrusions, and war, respectively.
But it is not absolutism which makes these values sometimes dangerous. Rather it is a lack of it. Slavery followed freedom because those defining freedom were relativists. Statists follow egalitarian movements because the egalitarians, once in positions of power, succumbed to relativism, i.e. corruption. War follows peace because we never define peace in an absolute sense as a universal desire, but instead in a relative, external sense; the appearance of peace -- a temporary shortage of bullets in mid-air.
It does not appear to me that absolutism is a particular danger to those who truly wish to practice morality.
"Opposition is true friendship." -- William Blake
Wonderful quote.
.
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: Truth Telling |
06 Mar 2005 10:03:47 AM |
|
|
Gabrielle Rapagnetta:
...
And, yes, truth-telling has absolutely positive moral value. Why
wouldn't it? The only case where truth-telling leads to harm is when a
previous greater lie has been told and believed. Maybe these numerous
scenarios of yours will shed light on my fallacy.
G*rd*n wrote:
Here's a scenario from real life. Once upon a time, there
was a family of Puerto Ricans which included at least one
brother, Ricardo, who enjoyed the use of illegal drugs, and
another brother, Esteban, who was somewhat retarded and perhaps
weak-willed. There came a day when the police needed to ramp
up their drug arrest numbers. However, they knew better than
to go after Ricardo, who was prudent enough not be be easy to
catch. Instead, they went to Esteban. Esteban told them the
truth -- who was using what, where when and how, and how to
catch them at it. Based on the truth, the police then arrested
Ricardo and several of his associates, and sent them to jail
for long prison terms. While in jail, Ricardo, who was small
and cute, was raped several times, and as a resulted was
infected with HIV. He developed AIDS and died a few years
later. Ricardo had a wife and two children. Some hard guys
believed that he was responsible for the bust, which in a way
was true, so they shot and killed his wife. The children were
raised, pretty much on Welfare, by two of the surviving
brothers. There is nothing in this story but the telling of
truth.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta <cut-out@gmx.net:n0.spam>:
I see at least two monstrous lies in that story, both taking the form of self-deceit. We have the police who
have convinced themselves that they are serving the public when in actuality they are serving a system which has
largely failed the public. Yet they persist with their bust-by-numbers scheme regardless of the human
consequences, regardless of the effect on crime rates, public safety, prison populations, broken families, and
regardless of justice.
We also have the hard guys, the drug dealers who lied to themselves about the nature of trust. They mistakenly
blame others for their own incompetencies. Had they taken responsibility for their own nefarious dealings they
would not have felt the need to take revenge upon Ricardo's family.
The only reason why lying appears to be Esteban's correct moral choice is because we know that the other
characters in this story will almost certainly make immoral decisions based upon their self-deceit. It is a
tragedy that Esteban's truth-telling is insufficient to counter the deceptions of those around him, but I think
my case still holds that, overall, honesty holds absolutely positive moral value.
I was using the notions of truth-telling and lying in their
more literal meaning, "uttering that which one believes to be
true" and "uttering that which one believes to be false"
respectively.
A person who believes in the Eighfold Path might say that one
who pursues power and sadistic pleasures, as Drug Warriors
do, are "lying to themselves" but I am not willing to speak
so metaphorically. Our discussion will carry a heavy burden
if we must first determine what is really real, what is good,
what the right faith and morals are, before we can say whether
someone is lying or not. Probably, we will not ever get to the
end of the first case. Meanwhile, we know that many, many
people, in and out of the police, believe that the Drug War
is a good thing and speak the truth (in my sense) when they
advertise it.
In my more restricted sense, there is no doubt that one can
often do a lot of immediate, concrete harm by telling the
truth.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta:
What value does moral relativism hold for anarchy? I just don't see it.
G*rd*n wrote:
That's an odd question. I don't know if anarchy is enough of
a coherent thing to hold values, other than those of which it
immediately consists, like personal freedom. As one might
expect there is great disagreement as to what contributes to
its aims. Some even value capitalism.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta:
I think I know why you consider that an odd question. It's because I'm looking for a path to anarchy while you
believe there is only realization. For those of us who believe there is some method which will bring us closer
to anarchy we can rule out moral relativism as a useful tool. Moral relativism is perhaps humanity's greatest
rationalization for war, inequality, and greed. After the war, after the subjugation, no one ever looks back
and asks, "so, uh, was all that questionable stuff we did actually moral?". Instead we practice the precise
opposite and erase the losers from our history books.
Most of the arguments I see in favor of the bad things, e.g.
George W. Bush's, seem to be absolutist. Relativism appears
less useful for that sort of thing; one can't issue decrees
for everybody else if one believes that good and evil are
dependent on subjectivity, perception and perspective. It
is much more effective, rhetorically speaking, to attribute
one's desires to the gods, if one wants to impose them on
others.
On the other hand, the fundamental principle (and problem)
for the practitioner of anarchism is to get along with other
people other than by means of violence and oppression (his
own or the State's). Attributing absolute validity to one's
beliefs and desires does not seem to help in this area;
if one's beliefs and desires are absolutely correct, as
above, it seems only logical to impose them on others.
Conceded, one might have an absolute belief in pacifism,
and the two joined terms could happily negate each other.
Gabrielle Rapagnetta:
But even for those who believe anarchy can be nothing more than a realization, I still do not understand the
usefulness of moral relativity or selective dishonesty. If you are lying to preserve your freedom then you were
never really free to begin with, were you?
You could say that, just as you could say that if you have to
use violence to preserve your freedom you were never really
free. But lying is, and violence is, and nevertheless we are
in some ways free. How do you resolve this paradox?
G*rd*n wrote:
The values of anarchy -- freedom, equality and peace -- are
simply things that I happen to prefer. I don't know if they
are best for everyone.
[...]
Gabrielle Rapagnetta:
I share those particular values and I would add honesty to the list and point out that all these values face
similar problems. Just as your story above told of some disastrous consequences of truth-telling, we often hear
stories of the disastrous consequences of freedom, equality, and peace. On usenet people are particularly fond
of challenging the absolutism of these values with a few of their consequences; slavery, statist intrusions, and
war, respectively.
But it is not absolutism which makes these values sometimes dangerous. Rather it is a lack of it. Slavery
followed freedom because those defining freedom were relativists. Statists follow egalitarian movements because
the egalitarians, once in positions of power, succumbed to relativism, i.e. corruption. War follows peace
because we never define peace in an absolute sense as a universal desire, but instead in a relative, external
sense; the appearance of peace -- a temporary shortage of bullets in mid-air.
It does not appear to me that absolutism is a particular danger to those who truly wish to practice morality.
That depends on which morality, doesn't it? One can have a
morality which places a high value on aggression and authority,
and assert that it was given by the gods and is therefore
absolute. There have been quite a few of them around in the
past, so I probably don't need to give examples.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Real Riain" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
25 Feb 2005 05:05:20 PM |
|
|
Denis Prager is a MORON
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SPDTd.29672$uc.19665@trnddc01...
:
: "Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
: > Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
: >
: >
: > Dennis Prager
:
: Who really ought to know better, since the term is pretty much an
oxymoron,
: promulgated by those who seek to eclipse Jewish ones.
:
: Susan.
:
:
.
|
|
|
| User: "Susan Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 01:32:14 AM |
|
|
"The Real Riain" <riain@riain.com> wrote in message
news:18ednWnQwo2wM4LfRVn-iw@comcast.com...
Denis Prager is a MORON
Yeah, and...?
Susan
"Susan Cohen" <flavia13@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SPDTd.29672$uc.19665@trnddc01...
:
: "Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
: news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
: > Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
: >
: >
: > Dennis Prager
:
: Who really ought to know better, since the term is pretty much an
oxymoron,
: promulgated by those who seek to eclipse Jewish ones.
:
: Susan.
:
:
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Björn Morén" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 09:38:09 AM |
|
|
"Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Whats the point in putting energy into this? Let people have their religion.
Our real problem is democracy, and as long as the government watch us fight
over religion they're happy, because that keeps attention from REAL issues.
Like for instance the lack of real democracy.
Regards,
Björn Morén
Stockholm
Sweden
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 09:58:49 AM |
|
|
"Björn Morén" <bjoernen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PPlUd.3466$Mw3.15@amstwist00...
"Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Whats the point in putting energy into this? Let people have their
religion.
Our real problem is democracy, and as long as the government watch us
fight
over religion they're happy, because that keeps attention from REAL
issues.
Like for instance the lack of real democracy.
Regards,
Björn Morén
Stockholm
Sweden
What is your definition of real democracy? I am honestly curious; what
would be the most commonly accepted definition of real democracy in Sweden?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Björn Morén" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 04:05:41 PM |
|
|
I think there's not a big difference from the US. Most people think they
live in a democracy just because the have choices in the their daily life,
when they really can't do much REAL difference without collaborate work and
a strong struggle against the elite. The established parties are more
different than the two parties of the US, but still not different enough to
make a real difference.
As for the definition of real democracy in Sweden. People dont care, because
people dont know anything else than the current system. There's no concensus
about real democracy. And since we are ahead many countries in some areas
(social security, technology, etc) I think people are somewhat satisfied.
But I'm sorry to say that the common swede is just as marginalized and as
any other western country. Step by step Sweden is becoming more and more
corrupted, and I dont see anyone caring about it. There's a general feeling
of discontent, but people are just not enlightened enough to know where to
focus their energy, so extremist fractions arise.
Maybe you've heard that Sweden is a socialist country. Well it has been, but
not anymore. Our government is so impressed by US imperialism that they are
transforming the country into some US state. Our leaders dont have the guts
to say much critique about US atrocities. I'm not left wing or anything, but
I dont like the general development.
My own view: real democracy would at least be when people are informed about
what really happens in the world and in their country, and when people's
opinions are reflected in the government. How that is made happen? I
seriously dont know. I think the current system is a result of our predatory
nature/evolution, ie built into our genes.
Whats your thoughts about this?
/Björn
"xyz" <kehr1@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4221f0ea_1@news1.prserv.net...
"Björn Morén" <bjoernen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PPlUd.3466$Mw3.15@amstwist00...
"Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Whats the point in putting energy into this? Let people have their
religion.
Our real problem is democracy, and as long as the government watch us
fight
over religion they're happy, because that keeps attention from REAL
issues.
Like for instance the lack of real democracy.
Regards,
Björn Morén
Stockholm
Sweden
What is your definition of real democracy? I am honestly curious; what
would be the most commonly accepted definition of real democracy in
Sweden?
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
27 Feb 2005 08:07:21 PM |
|
|
"Björn Morén" <bjoernen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1vrUd.3496$Mw3.1549@amstwist00...
I think there's not a big difference from the US. Most people think they
live in a democracy just because the have choices in the their daily life,
when they really can't do much REAL difference without collaborate work
and
a strong struggle against the elite. The established parties are more
different than the two parties of the US, but still not different enough
to
make a real difference.
This can only be understood as a personal expression of discontent with the
existing parties. How different the parties have to be in order to make a
difference will depend on the individual's posture about different issues,
and his own ideology. Democracy to me involves a give and take, a
negotiation. There has to be a common ground. It seems to me that if the
parties are perceived as similar, things are OK.
As for the definition of real democracy in Sweden. People dont care,
because
people dont know anything else than the current system. There's no
concensus
about real democracy. And since we are ahead many countries in some areas
(social security, technology, etc) I think people are somewhat satisfied.
But I'm sorry to say that the common swede is just as marginalized and as
any other western country. Step by step Sweden is becoming more and more
corrupted, and I dont see anyone caring about it. There's a general
feeling
of discontent, but people are just not enlightened enough to know where to
focus their energy, so extremist fractions arise.
Maybe you've heard that Sweden is a socialist country. Well it has been,
but
not anymore. Our government is so impressed by US imperialism that they
are
transforming the country into some US state. Our leaders dont have the
guts
to say much critique about US atrocities. I'm not left wing or anything,
but
I dont like the general development.
My own view: real democracy would at least be when people are informed
about
what really happens in the world and in their country, and when people's
opinions are reflected in the government. How that is made happen? I
seriously dont know. I think the current system is a result of our
predatory
nature/evolution, ie built into our genes.
Whats your thoughts about this?
I cannot talk about the internal political issues of Sweden because I don't
know anything about them.
You have probably heard, or read this many times, but I think that any form
of socialism, or any kind of government intervention, is prone to
corruption. It would be nice if it weren't so. (You may conclude that I
give the Swedes a lot of credit for having maintained their socialism fairly
clean for so long)
In order to have real democracy we all have to at least agree and obey the
rules, including the rules to change the rules. Real democracy cannot
leave anybody out, this means that the collective consciousness cannot
sacrifice the rights of the individual, a position which collides with hard
core left wing ideologies.
Best.
/Björn
"xyz" <kehr1@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4221f0ea_1@news1.prserv.net...
"Björn Morén" <bjoernen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PPlUd.3466$Mw3.15@amstwist00...
"Words Of Truth" <wordsoftruth117@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2f709fe3.0502250050.531d3700@posting.google.com...
Better answers: The case for Judeo-Christian values
Whats the point in putting energy into this? Let people have their
religion.
Our real problem is democracy, and as long as the government watch us
fight
over religion they're happy, because that keeps attention from REAL
issues.
Like for instance the lack of real democracy.
Regards,
Björn Morén
Stockholm
Sweden
What is your definition of real democracy? I am honestly curious; what
would be the most commonly accepted definition of real democracy in
Sweden?
.
|
|
|
| User: "G*rd*n" |
|
| Title: Re: The Case For Judeo-Christian Values |
28 Feb 2005 10:48:27 AM |
|
|
"Björn Morén" <bjoernen@hotmail.com>:
I think there's not a big difference from the US. Most people think they
live in a democracy just because the have choices in the their daily life,
when they really can't do much REAL difference without collaborate work
and
a strong struggle against the elite. The established parties are more
different than the two parties of the US, but still not different enough
to
make a real difference.
"xyz" <kehr1@attglobal.net>:
This can only be understood as a personal expression of discontent with the
existing parties. How different the parties have to be in order to make a
difference will depend on the individual's posture about different issues,
and his own ideology. Democracy to me involves a give and take, a
negotiation. There has to be a common ground. It seems to me that if the
parties are perceived as similar, things are OK.
...
That seems pretty superficial.
There are some serious issues within and around the concept
of democracy. One is how much power the State, however
democratic, ought to have over individuals and minorities
within it. Some people would say zero. In history, one
observes many cases of majorities voting for racism, war,
fascism, criminality, fraud and ignorance -- the people
in general seem not much freer of these ugly features than
elite classes.
Another issue is how the concept is enacted. In the United
States, and as far as I know in the world in general, most of
the population does not participate meaningfully in the
government at any level; that is reserved for the powerful
and aggressive. One would think that if the fundamental idea
of democracy were respected, a significant effort would be
made to encourage full participation by _everyone_. Instead,
things are mostly the other way around. "Democracy" turns
out to be a front, decor for something else.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
