The Holy Virgin Mary art work -- definition of god
Eric Dew
Brooklyn Museum of Modern Art titled "The Holy Virgin Mary." Many
people were deeply offended by art work.
I see a complete parallel with the illogic of that offense as with
JH's blind acceptance of god's existence.
Suppose the artist titled the art work, "African woman with Elephant Dung #1,"
would anyone be offended? I doubt it would have been offensive or have
brought in all the people and the attendant controversy.
It's not as though the painting is actually of Mary. Neither the artist
nor anyone else has visual knowledge of Mary's face. So, how come religious
people (and we know which religious people -- certainly not all) get all
bunched up in a lather about the painting? It's not because it was an
inherently offensive painting. It was because the artist chose to label
it with a name which would cause passionate complaints.
Similarly, suppose someone were to say, "No, you shouldn't believe in god.
You should believe in Mgonah." Well, won't people be just up in arms?
But do people (religious people, that is) ask, "Wait, what is Mgonah? How
do I find out more about Mgonah? How can I verify that Mgonah is real?
(and other fairly rational questions)" No. Instead, they'll bleat out
that God is it, Mgonah is false god, is evil, is bad, is wrong, is....
But it doesn't pass the word-test. Suppose the properties of Mgonah and
God are one-to-one identical. Why would one accept "god" and not "Mgonah"?
It's because of the name, not what the name represents. It's like the
art work. It's the name, not what the name represents (an art piece) which
gets people's goat.
I would ask any religious person, would you believe and follow in a
supernatural being named, Mgonah? If that person asks what Mgonah is,
I would say, "Just like your god, but only better." Would they believe
in Mgonah.
(If so, allow me to license the name Mgonah, register mgonah.com, mgonah.org,
and start my 501(c)(3) paperwork right now. I got some serious money
coming my way!)
EDEW
Dean F.
> Recently, as most people have heard, there was an art exhibit at the
> Brooklyn Museum of Modern Art titled "The Holy Virgin Mary." Many
> people were deeply offended by art work.
What's truly sad is that the artist who did the painting is very religious. He is
a Catholic of African descent.
Some African cultures believe that elephant dung has regenerative powers. I took
the painting as a symbol of what the artist's faith does to his "soul"--namely,
invigorating it.
When I tried to explain that to a co-worker, though, she replied, "Well, that's
not what it means in America. That painting is not art, and it's offensive!"
I could have argued that an African artist who lives in Britain shouldn't have to
concern himself with whether or not people in America would understand his work,
but I figured, why bother? It's not like I would have convinced her to close her
mouth and open her mind....
Bill Snedden
<snip>
> would anyone be offended? I doubt it would have been offensive or have
> brought in all the people and the attendant controversy.
Actually, yes, I was offended...I was offended that anyone would call
that tripe "art."
Regards,
Bill Snedden
"Here lies the body of Mary Ann Lowder
She burst while drinking a Seidlitz powder:
Called from this world to her heavenly rest:
She drank it and she effervesced."
Epitaph on a tombstone in Stanwich, CT
jh
Eric Dew wrote
>I see a complete parallel with the illogic of that offense as with
>JH's blind acceptance of god's existence.
>
From someone who is as logically illiterate as you I find that
comment quite astonishing. Please cite any actual comment of
mine ( as opposed to nonsense that you have made up)
that supports your assertion above. My bet is that there will
be none -this sort of ad hominem tactic is employed by
those that know they cannot win an argument at the level
of logical argument.
>Suppose the artist titled the art work, "African woman with Elephant Dung
#1,"
>would anyone be offended? I doubt it would have been offensive or have
>brought in all the people and the attendant controversy.
>It's not as though the painting is actually of Mary. Neither the artist
>nor anyone else has visual knowledge of Mary's face. So, how come
religious
>people (and we know which religious people -- certainly not all) get all
>bunched up in a lather about the painting
>
Thats not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor
rightly says, is that large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying
taxes to fund the exhibition. Why should
they be obliged to do so?
jh
Dean F.
> The issue is, as the mayor rightly says, is that large numbers of religious
> taxpayers are paying taxes to fund the exhibition. Why should they be
> obliged to do so?
Because the price of democracy is occasionally putting up with, and even
having to pay for, something that you personally find offensive.
For example, if you earn less than $30,000 a year, every cent you pay in
federal income tax goes toward the interest on the Reagan-Bush national debt.
Also, $300 billion a year of the people's tax money goes to funding the
military, with the "hawks" in Congress demanding more funding for the Pentagon
with every budget. This at a time when the U.S. has no enemies who could
really kick its butt. I find that situation extremely offensive!
I'd much rather that my tax dollars go to helping those at the bottom of the
heap of our so-called "affluent society." Unfortunately, my money does not go
to those people, but will the politicians listen if I demand that they use my
tax dollars differently? Only in my dreams!
So why should the religious be exempt from their tax dollars funding something
they personally find offensive?
--Dean
Tony Griffin
> Thats not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor
> rightly says, is that large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying
> taxes to fund the exhibition. Why should
> they be obliged to do so?
Well, because we (generally) don't get to pick and choose what our taxes
are spent on to this degree of detail. Lets say a pacifist wanted to
specify that none of his taxes should go for military purposes. Maybe
criminals would prefer not to fund the police.
How it works is that the government taxes us then spends the money as it
sees fit (OK there are some exceptions, like taxes raised for specific
purposes). Every few years we get an opportunity to express our feelings
on what sort of a job they have done.
The question is, should the arts be funded with public money or not? If
the answer is "yes", I submit that *all* art that so-called experts
consider to have merit should be funded equally. Any other method
invites a horrible mess (what would you do if half the population was
offended and the other half delighted by a piece of art?).
Anyway, opinions on art change, and yesterdays rubbish comes to be
considered to be todays masterpiece (and vice versa). If we censor based
on an immediate reaction, we're going to throw out a lot of babies with
the bathwater.
Tony
Giuseppe Panettieri
is, as the mayor rightly says, is that large numbers of religious
to do so?"
When government in the US makes funds available to the arts, they
must make that funding available to ALL artistic messages provided that
the artwork is found worthy by the National Endowment for the Arts, or
it's counterpart in local government in the case of the NYC exhibit.
Failure to fund unpopular viewpoints when popular ones recieve funding
is censorship.
http://community.webtv.net/JerseyJoe-1/BigJoesWebBonanza
James Martin
>Eric Dew wrote
>>I see a complete parallel with the illogic of that offense as with
>>JH's blind acceptance of god's existence.
From someone who is as logically illiterate as you I find that
>comment quite astonishing. Please cite any actual comment of
Insult #1.
>Thats not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor
>rightly says, is that large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying
>taxes to fund the exhibition. Why should they be obliged to do so?
Because they are not philistines, they should want to fund art whether or
not they agree with the message of a particular piece of art. If you
decide to fund art based on the content of that art, then you end up only
having a bunch of jingoistic, pro-governemt set-pieces in your museums. I
don't like every exhibit at the Met, that doesn't mean I wouldn't want to
fund the Met.
If they are philistines, then they will only want to fund whatever does
not challenge them. And in that case, most art is out the window.
Wheat
John Secker
<jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> writes
>Thats not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor
>rightly says, is that large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying
>taxes to fund the exhibition. Why should
>they be obliged to do so?
>
military, and large numbers of vegetarians pay taxes which go to support
needy beef-farmers. The taxpayers in question are part of the nation,
which operates under certain rules, and they accept the benefits which
come from having that status (protection of the laws, protection from
external enemies, etc). If they don't like the package, which includes
all the rules and all the benefits, then they are free to try to find a
better package in some other country.
--
John Secker
JeffMo
>Thats not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor
>rightly says, is that large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying
>taxes to fund the exhibition. Why should
>they be obliged to do so?
For the same reason atheists are obliged to support churches.
JeffMo
"[...] any effort at safe sex is totally, utterly immoral from top to bottom."
-- Rev. James Reuter, Office of Mass Media, Catholic Church of the Philippines
Ken Arromdee
Dean F. <soule...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>For example, if you earn less than $30,000 a year, every cent you pay in
>federal income tax goes toward the interest on the Reagan-Bush national debt.
This makes no sense. It sounds like you're taking the tax money used to
finance the debt, dividing by the number of people in the US, and concluding
that anyone who makes less money than the resulting figure is paying taxes
solely to support the debt.
Consider a reduction ad absurdum to show what's wrong with this practice.
Imagine that the total quantity of taxes paid for goal A is equivalent to
$X per person. Imagine that the total quantity of taxes paid for goal B is
also equivalent to $X per person.
By your reasoning, anyone who pays $X in taxes is paying every cent to A, and
paying every cent to B at the same time.
The proper calculation is to calculate what proportion of total taxes is
used for the debt. Then, to figure out how much of a particular person's
taxes goes towards it, you apply that proportion to the total taxes that that
particular person pays.
--
Ken Arromdee / arro...@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"I have never seen the inside of the building at Microsoft where the top
executives hang out, but I have this fantasy that in the hallways, at regular
intervals, big red alarm boxes are bolted to the wall. Each contains a large
red button protected by a windowpane. A metal hammer dangles on a chain next
to it. Above is a big sign reading: IN THE EVENT OF A CRASH IN MARKET SHARE,
BREAK GLASS." -- Neal Stephenson
Ron Zajac
> Dean F. wrote:
>
> jh wrote:
>
> > The issue is, as the mayor rightly says, is that large numbers of
religious
> > taxpayers are paying taxes to fund the exhibition. Why should they be
> > obliged to do so?
>
> having to pay for, something that you personally find offensive.
>
> federal income tax goes toward the interest on the Reagan-Bush national
debt.
> military, with the "hawks" in Congress demanding more funding for the
Pentagon
> with every budget. This at a time when the U.S. has no enemies who could
> really kick its butt. I find that situation extremely offensive!
>
> I'd much rather that my tax dollars go to helping those at the bottom of
the
> heap of our so-called "affluent society." Unfortunately, my money does
not go
> to those people, but will the politicians listen if I demand that they
use my
> tax dollars differently? Only in my dreams!
>
> So why should the religious be exempt from their tax dollars funding
something
> they personally find offensive?
>
> --Dean
I really like this response from Dean, if only because it leads to the
obvious answer: Because the offenses differ in interesting ways; and a
study of those differences might be very enlightening.
Public funding for religious expression is offensive because it violates the
Constitutional separation between church & state.
Public funding for "defense" has to be offensive for a different reason,
since the Constitution provides for a national defense. Rather, it's
offensive because it stretches the dictionary definition of "defense" beyond
all sensible and honorable boundaries. So, for example, "defense" spending
has been supporting Suharto & Co. for the last 30+ years. Our national
"defense" bombed and napalmed the hell out of farmers and small-operator
industries half-way 'round the globe for a decade. And the list goes on and
on. But this is offensive for very different reasons from state support
for, say, sectarian prayer. Prayer may be silly, but it doesn't [directly]
kill people.
Ron A. Zajac
Config Mgmt Support, WSN Base, 2C23
NORTEL Networks, Richardson, Texas, USA
desk: 972 684-4887 (esn444)
pager: 817 432-4794
"Then Neil and I played darts for a while/
Before we switched on our Theatrical Smiles...."
-- Bonzo Dog Band
Paul Filseth
> "jh" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > That's not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor rightly says, is that
> > large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying taxes to fund the
> > exhibition. Why should they be obliged to do so?
>
"should be obliged"?
--
Paul Filseth To email, delete the x.
That's a hard question. I don't answer hard questions.
- Justice John Paul Stevens
Paul Filseth
> "jh" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
> > That's not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor rightly says, is that
> > large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying taxes to fund the
> > exhibition. Why should they be obliged to do so?
>
> military,
You mean because art, like national defense, is a "public good" in
the economic sense? That is, we can't supply it to those willing to
pay while withholding it from those who choose not to pay?
> and large numbers of vegetarians pay taxes which go to support
> needy beef-farmers.
Why should beef farmers get government subsidies?
> The taxpayers in question are part of the nation,
> which operates under certain rules, and they accept the benefits which
> come from having that status (protection of the laws, protection from
> external enemies, etc). If they don't like the package, which includes
> all the rules and all the benefits, then they are free to try to find a
> better package in some other country.
That's a terrible argument. You can defend _any_ injustice that
way. If a cancer patient is denied the medication he needs because
letting him have it would "send the wrong message about drugs to our
children", or if black people aren't allowed in the front half of the
bus, or if poor teenage girls are forbidden to make a living braiding
hair unless they satisfy the government's impractically stringent
licensing requirements, tell them that's just part of the American
package, and they're free to emigrate if they don't like it. Come on.
Jim asked a fair question; it deserves a fair answer.
JeffMo
>> > That's not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor rightly says, is that
>> > large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying taxes to fund the
>> > exhibition. Why should they be obliged to do so?
>>
>> For the same reason atheists are obliged to support churches.
>
> What reason is that? And how did you get from "are obliged" to
>"should be obliged"?
Good point. I missed the "should be."
The correct answer (which I also missed) is "because our elected
representatives have chosen to fund the arts using tax money, and it's
unconstitutional to give those same representatives the power to
distinguish 'acceptable' works of art on the basis of religious
content."
IMO, it would be OK (but perhaps not optimal) for government to not
fund any art, and it would also be OK to have independent arbiters who
choose art to display on the basis of the artistic merits of the
works, but it's not OK for government to influence those choices on a
religious basis.
Eric Dew
Paul Filseth <pg...@lsil.com> wrote:
>jef...@dipstick.cfw.com (JeffMo) wrote:
>> "jh" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>> > That's not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor rightly says, is that
>> > large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying taxes to fund the
>> > exhibition. Why should they be obliged to do so?
>>
>> For the same reason atheists are obliged to support churches.
>
> What reason is that? And how did you get from "are obliged" to
>"should be obliged"?
>
various means without taxation in the same way corporations are taxed.
We allow churches exemptions not given to other people. Thus, they
(the churches) don't pay their share of the taxes and so we -- atheists
and non -- pay our taxes in part to support their lack of contribution.
EDEW
Eric Dew
Paul Filseth <pg...@lsil.com> wrote:
>John Secker <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> "jh" <jimh...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote:
>> > That's not the issue. The issue is, as the mayor rightly says, is that
>> > large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying taxes to fund the
>> > exhibition. Why should they be obliged to do so?
>>
>> military,
>
> You mean because art, like national defense, is a "public good" in
>the economic sense? That is, we can't supply it to those willing to
>pay while withholding it from those who choose not to pay?
>
foundations supporting art. In that case, they can pay or not pay
for whatever reason they have. However, the government can't be
so discriminating. If the government is going to support the arts
(money for the opera, NEA, etc.), then it must be done in a
non-discriminatory way. (Whether that's being done currently is
certainly debatable.)
>> and large numbers of vegetarians pay taxes which go to support
>> needy beef-farmers.
>
> Why should beef farmers get government subsidies?
Because some are farmers who just get government subsidies. Many of
the very well-off ranchers are well-off because of generous subsidies
by the government (subsidies intended to help the small, poor farmers,
but the big corporate ones know how to sneak around loopholes to
get to the money).
>
>> The taxpayers in question are part of the nation,
>> which operates under certain rules, and they accept the benefits which
>> come from having that status (protection of the laws, protection from
>> external enemies, etc). If they don't like the package, which includes
>> all the rules and all the benefits, then they are free to try to find a
>> better package in some other country.
>
> That's a terrible argument. You can defend _any_ injustice that
>way. If a cancer patient is denied the medication he needs because
>letting him have it would "send the wrong message about drugs to our
>children", or if black people aren't allowed in the front half of the
>bus, or if poor teenage girls are forbidden to make a living braiding
>hair unless they satisfy the government's impractically stringent
>licensing requirements, tell them that's just part of the American
>package, and they're free to emigrate if they don't like it. Come on.
>Jim asked a fair question; it deserves a fair answer.
Good point.
EDEW
John Secker
> That's a terrible argument. You can defend _any_ injustice that
>way. If a cancer patient is denied the medication he needs because
>letting him have it would "send the wrong message about drugs to our
>children", or if black people aren't allowed in the front half of the
>bus, or if poor teenage girls are forbidden to make a living braiding
>hair unless they satisfy the government's impractically stringent
>licensing requirements, tell them that's just part of the American
>package, and they're free to emigrate if they don't like it. Come on.
>Jim asked a fair question; it deserves a fair answer.
He got a fair answer - that's democracy for you. I am not interested in
arguing the rights and wrongs of a particular case, I am simply stating
the facts. If you don't like the rules under which a nation operates,
then you can seek to change them, or you can leave. If you fail to
change them, then the rules will stay the same. The American nation has
decided on the rules which will apply to public funding of various
things such as art, defence and beef farming, and those who disagree
with the rules have failed to make their point sufficiently to have
those rules changed. That is "why" those rules now exist. That is the
answer to Jim's question - he did not ask "Is it morally correct for
religious people to pay to subsidise art which attacks their religion?"
which is the question you seem to want to answer.
Whether you like it or not, your sarcastic portmanteau response is in
practice true - you can accept the package, or you can leave. This does
not make the package "just" or "fair", but that is not what I claimed.
--
John Secker
JeffMo
>In article <199910171846.LAA12168@dv53w192>,
>Paul Filseth <pg...@lsil.com> wrote:
>>jef...@dipstick.cfw.com (JeffMo) wrote:
>>> For the same reason atheists are obliged to support churches.
>>
>> What reason is that? And how did you get from "are obliged" to
>>"should be obliged"?
>>
>I think we're obliged in that we allow churches to generate income by
>various means without taxation in the same way corporations are taxed.
>We allow churches exemptions not given to other people. Thus, they
>(the churches) don't pay their share of the taxes and so we -- atheists
>and non -- pay our taxes in part to support their lack of contribution.
This is absolutely what I had in mind, in addition to the subsidies
that churches get when they run social programs that are allegedly
free of proselytization and religious content. However, as I've
addressed in another post in this thread, Paul was correctly noting
that I did not cover why it SHOULD be this way.
Each issue can be argued on a case-by-case basis, but it is certainly
true that if we allowed people to "opt-out" of taxation based on
whether or not they take offense to the planned use of the monies,
there would probably be very little tax revenue left. Of course,
maybe THAT is the way it "should be!" :)
Paul Filseth
> > That's a terrible argument. You can defend _any_ injustice that
> > way. If a cancer patient is denied the medication he needs because
> > letting him have it would "send the wrong message about drugs to our
> > children", or if black people aren't allowed in the front half of the
> > bus, or if poor teenage girls are forbidden to make a living braiding
> > hair unless they satisfy the government's impractically stringent
> > licensing requirements, tell them that's just part of the American
> > package, and they're free to emigrate if they don't like it. Come on.
> > Jim asked a fair question; it deserves a fair answer.
>
> arguing the rights and wrongs of a particular case, I am simply stating
> answer to Jim's question - he did not ask "Is it morally correct for
> religious people to pay to subsidise art which attacks their religion?"
> which is the question you seem to want to answer.
Here is the actual text of Jim's question:
"The issue is, as the mayor rightly says, is that large numbers
of religious taxpayers are paying taxes to fund the exhibition.
Why should they be obliged to do so?"
That is not an inquiry as to why those rules now exist. That is
an inquiry as to why supporters of the rules think they're morally
correct. It's what "should" means. If he had meant to ask why the
rules exist, he would have written "Why are they obliged to do so?"
"Are", not "should".
> Whether you like it or not, your sarcastic portmanteau response
My response was not a sarcastic; it was a straightforward
explanation for why "should" questions should not be answered the way
you answered Jim's question. People answer "should" questions that
way all the time; it's a fallacy that deserves to be in the FAQ.
> is in practice true - you can accept the package, or you can leave.
False dilemma. You can also protest, argue, and get in the faces
of people who support the package until they justify the rules or admit
they're wrong.
Incidentally, I think there _is_ a fair answer to Jim's question.
As a couple of people have pointed out, taxpayer funded museums show
pro-religion art. To discriminate against anti-religion art would be
to respect an establishment of religion. So the government should
fund both or neither.
Paul Filseth
> > large numbers of religious taxpayers are paying taxes to fund the
> > exhibition. Why should they be obliged to do so?
>
> The correct answer (which I also missed) is "because our elected
> representatives have chosen to fund the arts using tax money, and it's
> unconstitutional to give those same representatives the power to
> distinguish 'acceptable' works of art on the basis of religious
> content."
> IMO, it would be OK (but perhaps not optimal) for government to not
> fund any art, and it would also be OK to have independent arbiters who
> choose art to display on the basis of the artistic merits of the
> works, but it's not OK for government to influence those choices on a
> religious basis.
This all makes good sense. But it opens up the question of what
artistic merit _is_. It seems to me art is basically a matter of taste,
and the chosen independent arbiters are not necessarily more competent
than the man in the street. How are the judges to be selected, and why
are their biases more to be honored than Giuliani's biases or the
majority's biases?
I figure what's going on with museums is we're collectively buying
art, because we like art. And just as any individual art patron is,
we're entitled to buy the art we like. If the public votes to buy only
paintings that have blue sky in them and no clouds, it's their money.
Buying only pro-religion paintings is unacceptable, not because that's
discrimination, but because that's _religious_ discrimination, which
is unconstitutional. But there's nothing in the Constitution telling
Congress to make no law respecting an establishment of blue sky.
It follows that if the public decides what they want to fund is,
say, "meritorious art", and not, say, "crap", they can. And if they
want to establish some hard-and-fast rules for distinguishing the two,
then as long as the rules aren't just ways to sneak in a religious
test, they can. And if one rule the public wants to adopt is "crap
is crap", they can.
Of course, to get rid of the Virgin Mary painting on that basis
_at this point_ would be disingenuous -- it would be an ad hoc
subterfuge for a religious imposition. But for future reference, I
don't see any legal or moral problem with enacting a "no feces" rule.
From one point of view, that might be artistically closed-minded
on the part of the public; but then, it isn't the public's duty to
finance every coprophilic elitist who thinks the unwashed need to be
reeducated.
Paul Filseth
> jef...@dipstick.cfw.com (JeffMo) wrote:
> > For the same reason atheists are obliged to support churches.
>
> various means without taxation in the same way corporations are taxed.
> We allow churches exemptions not given to other people. Thus, they
> (the churches) don't pay their share of the taxes and so we -- atheists
> and non -- pay our taxes in part to support their lack of contribution.
Why do you regard a lack of contribution as something others
"support"? If the infamous Pirates of Penzance robbed you, would you
feel their policy of not stealing from orphans means you're supporting
the orphans? How much lighter would your burden be if the orphans
weren't there?
Churches receive fire and police protection they don't pay for,
and that may fairly be called support from atheists; but mere "lack of
contribution", never. That's the sort of Orwellian thinking that lets
demagogues call a reduction in taxes a "handout", and the rule against
teachers telling students to pray, "state-sponsored atheism."
John Secker
<pg...@lsil.com> writes
> My response was not a sarcastic; it was a straightforward
>explanation for why "should" questions should not be answered the way
>you answered Jim's question. People answer "should" questions that
>way all the time; it's a fallacy that deserves to be in the FAQ.
>
You can answer "should" questions at a number of levels, and I chose to
take the plainest (or most superficial, if you prefer) - you "should"
subsidise the art because those are the (current) rules of the society
you have chosen to live in, and you "should" obey the rules because that
is the way lawful people in a democracy "should" behave. This is not a
trivial point, it is (IMHO) terribly important - many people believe
they have the right to ignore laws they don't like, but a functioning
society depends at bottom on voluntary obedience to the code of laws -
without that even a state full of police cannot keep things running. It
may be argued that you should not obey immoral laws, but that is what a
constitution is supposed to be for - to exclude in advance immoral laws.
That's the theory, of course, and I cannot propound a universal rule to
decide at what point a law, or a regime, has become "immoral", and
therefore it becomes right to break the laws. Lack of an effective
democracy is a good place to start.
>> is in practice true - you can accept the package, or you can leave.
>
> False dilemma. You can also protest, argue, and get in the faces
>of people who support the package until they justify the rules or admit
>they're wrong.
>
post. However that does not dispose of the dilemma, which still applies
to whatever set of laws are in force at a given moment - you should obey
the (current) laws, or get out. If you can get the laws changed, fine,
that may make things more comfortable for you, but the choice is still
there - obey the rules (the new ones) or leave.
--
John Secker
Ken Arromdee
John Secker <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I understand your interpretation of the word (should), but I disagree.
>You can answer "should" questions at a number of levels, and I chose to
>take the plainest (or most superficial, if you prefer) - you "should"
>subsidise the art because those are the (current) rules of the society
>you have chosen to live in, and you "should" obey the rules because that
>is the way lawful people in a democracy "should" behave. This is not a
>trivial point, it is (IMHO) terribly important - many people believe
>they have the right to ignore laws they don't like, but a functioning
>society depends at bottom on voluntary obedience to the code of laws -
>without that even a state full of police cannot keep things running.
If you're morally obligated to follow society's laws, that still can't possibly
be true if society hasn't even decided what the laws are. In this case, the
way that society decides the law is by a Supreme Court ruling. Until the
Supreme Court rules, society hasn't yet "decided" whether this art has to be
subsidized.
--
Ken Arromdee / arro...@rahul.net / http://www.rahul.net/arromdee
"Eventually all companies are replaced." --Bill Gates, October 1999
John Secker
<arro...@rahul.net> writes
>
>If you're morally obligated to follow society's laws, that still can't possibly
>be true if society hasn't even decided what the laws are. In this case, the
>way that society decides the law is by a Supreme Court ruling. Until the
>Supreme Court rules, society hasn't yet "decided" whether this art has to be
>subsidized.
Society makes a lot of decisions without the Supreme Court intervening -
that only happens in cases where a decision cannot be obtained in any
other way. Presumably in the current case there is a default position or
status quo - which is I assume that at present taxes ARE used to
subsidise art. The law also requires you to pay your taxes. If the
Supreme Court rules against this status quo in some way (and I am not
aware of a relevant case impending) then the rules have changed and you
and everybody else is expected to stick to the new rules.
--
John Secker
Deykin ap Gwion
>
> In article <3800D44E...@earthlink.net>,
> Dean F. <soule...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >federal income tax goes toward the interest on the Reagan-Bush national debt.
>
> finance the debt, dividing by the number of people in the US, and concluding
> that anyone who makes less money than the resulting figure is paying taxes
> solely to support the debt.
>
> Consider a reduction ad absurdum to show what's wrong with this practice.
> Imagine that the total quantity of taxes paid for goal A is equivalent to
> $X per person. Imagine that the total quantity of taxes paid for goal B is
> also equivalent to $X per person.
>
> By your reasoning, anyone who pays $X in taxes is paying every cent to A, and
> paying every cent to B at the same time.
>
> The proper calculation is to calculate what proportion of total taxes is
> used for the debt. Then, to figure out how much of a particular person's
> taxes goes towards it, you apply that proportion to the total taxes that that
> particular person pays.
Unless what he is saying is that taxes paid, in total, by people earning
$30,000/year or less is equal to the interest paid yearly on the
National Debt. Obviously the money is NOT earmarked by income level to
a particular outlay, but if (and I am not making the claim) the levels
of tax income for the aforementioned group is equivalent to a particular
brand of outlay, one COULD equate the two to make a point, and not with
particular fallacy.
Paul Filseth
> I understand your interpretation of the word (should), but I disagree.
> You can answer "should" questions at a number of levels, and I chose to
> take the plainest (or most superficial, if you prefer) - you "should"
> subsidise the art because those are the (current) rules of the society
> you have chosen to live in,
The phrase was "should be obliged", not "should subsidize", so I
doubt very much if that's what Jim meant. But he can clarify it for
us if he cares.
> and you "should" obey the rules because that
> is the way lawful people in a democracy "should" behave. This is not a
> trivial point, it is (IMHO) terribly important - many people believe
> they have the right to ignore laws they don't like, but a functioning
> society depends at bottom on voluntary obedience to the code of laws -
> without that even a state full of police cannot keep things running.
Well, that's a credible philosophical position to take, but here's
what was concerning me. When you take this tack, you really need two
different "should" words, or else this can easily turn into a circular
argument engine. I once heard a talk-radio host arguing with a caller
about drug legalization. The caller was a libertarian type: it was his
body and he had the right to take whatever drugs he wanted. The host
said taking drugs was illegal, and she didn't agree he had any right
to break the law. He said it was an immoral law. She said it's still
wrong to take drugs because society would break down if people just
disobeyed laws they didn't like. He said the law ought to be repealed.
She said it shouldn't be, because taking drugs is wrong. He asked why,
and she said she'd just explained that.
What do you consider the "law" to be, anyway? What it says? What
five justices say it means? As near as I can tell, federal drug laws
are illegal, but the Supreme Court simply systematically chooses never
to pay any attention to the 10th Amendment. So do you think it's okay
to take drugs your state legislature hasn't banned? Which do you owe
voluntary obedience to, The Law(tm), or whatever mechanism your society
uses in practice to keep things running?
> It may be argued that you should not obey immoral laws, but that is what a
> constitution is supposed to be for - to exclude in advance immoral laws.
> That's the theory, of course,
It doesn't work. It can't, since constitutions are compromises
among people with different conceptions of what's immoral. I don't
think that's what constitutions are for, anyway. The main purpose of
a constitution is to prevent civil wars, by divying up power in such
a way that nobody displeased with the division has a realistic chance
of changing it by force or a good enough reason to try anyway.
> and I cannot propound a universal rule to
> decide at what point a law, or a regime, has become "immoral", and
> therefore it becomes right to break the laws. Lack of an effective
> democracy is a good place to start.
>
> > > is in practice true - you can accept the package, or you can leave.
> >
> > False dilemma. You can also protest, argue, and get in the faces
> > of people who support the package until they justify the rules or admit
> > they're wrong.
>
> Of course you can, and you should - and indeed I said as much in my
> post. However that does not dispose of the dilemma, which still applies
> to whatever set of laws are in force at a given moment - you should obey
> the (current) laws, or get out.
At one time the U.S. had an effective democracy and a law
requiring citizens to help apprehend escaped slaves. Should the
underground railroad have moved to Canada instead of helping the
runaways get there?
Ken Arromdee
John Secker <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>If you're morally obligated to follow society's laws, that still can't possibly
>>be true if society hasn't even decided what the laws are. In this case, the
>>way that society decides the law is by a Supreme Court ruling. Until the
>>Supreme Court rules, society hasn't yet "decided" whether this art has to be
>>subsidized.
>Society makes a lot of decisions without the Supreme Court intervening -
>that only happens in cases where a decision cannot be obtained in any
>other way. Presumably in the current case there is a default position or
>status quo - which is I assume that at present taxes ARE used to
>subsidise art.
This depends on exactly how you characterize the default position. For
instance, if the default position is "the people distributing the money get to
decide how it's distributed", then the default would be to deny the funding.
Anyway, how would you suggest someone go about challenging a law, if they're
not allowed to violate it under the belief it's a bad law?
Ken Arromdee
Deykin ap Gwion <tig...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >For example, if you earn less than $30,000 a year, every cent you pay in
>> >federal income tax goes toward the interest on the Reagan-Bush national debt.
>> This makes no sense. It sounds like you're taking the tax money used to
>> finance the debt, dividing by the number of people in the US, and concluding
>> that anyone who makes less money than the resulting figure is paying taxes
>> solely to support the debt.
>$30,000/year or less is equal to the interest paid yearly on the
>National Debt.
No, "is equal to" and "goes towards" aren't the same thing.