religious schools
John F Haugh II
>The only widespread home schooling movement I've seen is amongst
>fundamentalist Christians who believe that their kids need to have religion
>mixed in with all other aspects of their education. THat may be well and good
>for them, and they deserve that choice...but they should not be able to force
>their ideas on my children. If those are the ones who you think should have
>control over the public school system, then you are not sdvocating educational
>freedom at all.
I don't think my children need to have religion mixed in with their
education, but rather that they don't need to have immorality and
"moral relativism" taught to them. Nor do I want to force you to
send your children to a school where they might learn something you
disapprove of. But as it stands right now, YOU have the choice and
I don't. You don't want religious instruction, good for you, your
kids aren't getting it. But I don't want my (unborn) kids to
receive 8 hours a day of immorality indoctrination, and as the
system stands right now, I'm a second class citizen because that
choice requires that I cough up $$$.
>I will never support one penny of my tax dollars going to support ANY form of
>religious education, directly or indirectly.
Fine by me. I'm not asking you to pay for my children's religious
instruction. All I'm asking for is the same financial support for
my children's education as you receive for yours with the only
requirement being that certain basic standards are met. If it costs
$2,000 a year for a morally bankrupt education and $2,000 a year
for one with religious instruction, seems like that religious
instruction isn't costing you a red cent. Where the money comes
from is none of your business - it could come from more efficient
operations or reduced profits or even my pocket. But it most
certainly isn't any of your business how private enterprise manages
its financial affairs.
--
John F. Haugh II | Every 56 days. | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | Give Blood, often. | Domain: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
" ... expectation is the mother of disappointment."
-- Brad Konopik
Joe Mullally
>In article <58...@lib.tmc.edu> jmay...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard) writes:
>>The only widespread home schooling movement I've seen is amongst
>>fundamentalist Christians who believe that their kids need to have religion
>>mixed in with all other aspects of their education. THat may be well and good
>>for them, and they deserve that choice...but they should not be able to force
>>their ideas on my children. If those are the ones who you think should have
>>control over the public school system, then you are not sdvocating educational
>>freedom at all.
>
>I don't think my children need to have religion mixed in with their
>education, but rather that they don't need to have immorality and
>"moral relativism" taught to them.
Or, that it's _usually_ a good thing, but, in the case of morality, since
it makes John and Daryl feel morally superior to an individual Southern
slave owner that grew up in the environment (slavery)? Well, guys, neither
of you are morally superior to that slave owner, _society_ has changed.
Is this the type of thinking you're afraid of, John? Do we teach, then, that
all men that participated in "seperate but equal" were evil/immoral?
You both make it sound as though there may be something _immoral_
with respect to "moral relativism". To me, you both fool yourselves into
this feeling of superiority, morally, over such people. You intentionally
ignore evidence, and point a moral finger at those who _would_ take
said evidence into consideration. To me, this is a greater evil- ignorance.
Do you choose to consider the social environment, or does a Southern man
who died hundreds of years ago get judged on your terms only, as you
ignore evidence? Tell me John, is knowledge evil?
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally (ro...@sugar.neosoft.com) PH:713-681-2495
Joe Mullally
>In article <1991Dec30.1...@NeoSoft.com> ro...@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>>[regarding atheist schools...]
>>>
>>>In any case, religion is not like shopping for
>>>a car- you don't pick the one that suits your lifestyle. You pick the one you
>>>feel is most correct.
>>
>> "Correct" = "right". How is that different from picking a car? That's
>>the "right" car for a large man, this one's "right" for a small man. Neither
>>is _universally_ "right", right?
>
>This is called moral relativism.
Ah, and it's having a "name" makes it bad, no?
> Taken to a logical extreme, it's quite simple
>to say that killing people is OK for one man because it's "right" for him.
First of all, hell yes, it's right for some folks. Otherwise, we'd have
to hire robots to do capital punishment, eh? Or, do we try the man that made
the injection?
Also, take "drinking a glass of water" to a logical extreme, and you
envision exploding people, right? Take "abstaining from sex" to a logical
extreme, and the human population vanishes.
> Or
>that the racially-based slavery that existed in the US through the 19th
>century was OK for them because it was acceptable then.
The whole world did not "sprout up" in the 19th century. People did
nnot individually decide that slavery was evil, and choose it. It had been
with mankind for quite some time. Yes, America had slavery. But, the rest of
the story is that we now stand as an icon against slavery. All that change
occured in a small amount of time, historically. You can be ashamed if you want,
I'm proud.
>>> My life as a Christian would be a WHOLE lot simpler
>>>if I felt that free sex and stealing were acceptable.
>>
>> Actually, to deem these acts as simply "wrong", or "immoral",
>>makes your life a heck of a lot simpler. Your religion may well be "right"
>>for you; it's not "right" for all. I wouldn't feel "right" disallowing
>>opposing viewpoints from "heaven".
>
>Oh, no. There have been two or three times when I would have dearly loved
>to have sex with someone and didn't because of mutual belief systems
>between the two of us. I would have felt MUCH better at the time going
>through with it. (Self respect later on is something else, though.)
That's not a matter of simplicity, is it? That's a matter of
restraint, difficulty with restraint. What's "simple" is that someone
tells you both that the sex would be "immoral", "wrong", and that it
was the factor which most affected your decision not to have sex. It's
simple, it's easy to follow: "Sex is bad, Daryl, don't do it." Unfortunately,
"sex is bad" doesn't begin to encompass the realities about sex, and
make available to the person his/her real choices.
>Do you deem stealing to be "right" (for anyone), btw?
Depends on what's being stolen. Do you think it's "right" for
our spys to steal things from our enemies?
Joe Mullally
>In article <1991Dec30.1...@NeoSoft.com> ro...@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>
>
>Why not?
It scares me.
> The few examples I've seen indicate the home schooling does
>a pretty good job of teaching traditional material. College educated
>parents shouldn't have any problems teaching their kids through a good
>portion of the high school level. Use some standard to ensure that
>home schooled kids are getting the minimal level of education and you'll
>do fine.
I don't believe parents would be responsible enough, to be honest.
I see mayhem.
>> I will say that things may be slipping out of control, as far as
>>the vouchers are concerned. It seems to me that we forget where the funds
>>came from in the 1st place. The gov't is, in effect, managing our resources
>>in order to provide what we desire- educational facilities. How does it
>>occur that we now view this as something the gov't _pays for_? It is fair
>>to allow John Doe's $2000 to be (initially) spent on the school John Doe
>>desires. Let's imagine that instead of accumulating _all_ of the funds,
>>then distributing them, that the gov't says each individual _must_ give
>>(the taxable amount that ends up going to schools with our current system)
>>to the school which their child attends. Suddenly, the gov't has _no_
>>religious entanglement. That seems fair, and Constitutional, to me.
>The problem is that many people (myself included) feel that education should
>be subsidized -- there is simply too much at stake to let our society go
>uneducated. If that's the case, then the government has to get involved
>to distribute the subsidy. Assuming the government could assess each
>family's ability to pay for primary and secondary (not higher) education,
>it seems like it'd be a big mess to *force* the parents to give this much
>money to the school while still requiring their kids to attend. In other
>words, it seems like it would be too easy for parents to keep their kids out
>of school and pocket the money.
Hopefully, parents would be happier to give their money directly to
the school, I'd think. The tax form might ask:
Check One:
1)I'd like the education part of my tax bill to the big, huge, money pot
called "education budget".
2)I want that amount to go to:
(List schools and $ amounts).
>Your proposal is interesting, but, clearly, more work is needed to make
>it feasible, if it can be made feasible at all. I'm open to suggestions.
Actually, I'd prefer to get Social Security done this way, at
least. I mean, I can understand why our gov't, benevolent Uncle Sam,
wants to help us by forcing us to set money aside. But, why don't they
legislate that I must set x$ aside in a retirement fund of my choosing
(okay, the gov't could make a list of approved investments for me to choose
from), and have accounts with _my_ name on them? (Oops, getting off the
subject).
Jordan Marc Kossack
- beliefs to leave them out of their political lives. For some of us who are
- politically active, doing so would require us to ignore most of the beliefs
- we have. It really would require us to hide our religion under a rock.
Here's where we have a bit of a problem, John. I understand that
our public officials are influenced by their religious/moral beliefs.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with that. However, on the
other side of the same coin, if religious/moral beliefs are a factor in
the laws our legislators support and the decisions our judges make, it
must follow that the religion of a candidate is something that should
be taken into account. Yet, (before the Hill thing) there was a hoopla
over whether Judge Thomas' religious beliefs should be considered during
the confirmation process.
-
- When people attack my right to freedom of religion, I don't take it
- sitting down.
Fair enough, but that's a double-edged sword. Politicians who let
their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) influence their actions in
office can not cry "discrimination!" when religion becomes a factor in
the next elections. Either it influences them or it doesn't - they can't
have it both ways.
--
Jordan Kossack |
n5qvi | Pro-Choice applies to RKBA too
kos...@rice.edu |
John F Haugh II
> Here's where we have a bit of a problem, John. I understand that
> our public officials are influenced by their religious/moral beliefs.
> I don't think that there's anything wrong with that. However, on the
> other side of the same coin, if religious/moral beliefs are a factor in
> the laws our legislators support and the decisions our judges make, it
> must follow that the religion of a candidate is something that should
> be taken into account. Yet, (before the Hill thing) there was a hoopla
> over whether Judge Thomas' religious beliefs should be considered during
> the confirmation process.
I encourage you to study the election of JFK - it was argued that his
being a Catholic would prevent him from being an effective president
since his allegiance would be to Rome, not to the American public. Since
JFK's true allegiance was to his penis, I don't see that his being Catholic
was anywhere near as damaging as his being a Kennedy.
Part of the hoopla with Justice Thomas was whether or not his being a
Catholic would influence his decisions since again, it might be argued
that his allegiance would be to Rome. Since he isn't a Catholic (he and
I share the same denomination - we are both Episcopalians), this is again
a moot point. Were someone to try pushing some pro- or anti- abortion
position the Episcopal church holds, he might have it pointed out to him
that Episcopalians are free to ignore their bishops (unlike what the
Catholic church would like to believe, that their followers someone follow
what Rome says ...)
Just like the charges of sexual harassment, the charges made against him
on the basis of his alleged religious affiliation were unfounded lies.
> Fair enough, but that's a double-edged sword. Politicians who let
> their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) influence their actions in
> office can not cry "discrimination!" when religion becomes a factor in
> the next elections. Either it influences them or it doesn't - they can't
> have it both ways.
Certainly. If I am a professed child molester, I would certainly expect
people to take my professed child molestation into account. Likewise, if
people value the attributes of someone who labels themselves <X>, letting
people know they are an <X> would seem to be an advantage. Whether that
<X> is "Belongs to the YMCA" or "Belongs to the Episcopal Church", I see
no difference. Similiarly, being a former Televandalist would seem to be
a severe hinderance to being elected to public office. It would appear
that we already have exactly what you are warning us about and that it
already works just fine - you'll notice that Jimmy Swaggart has NOT been
elected to the White House ;-)
John F Haugh II
> Are you saying that "relative" evidence in any case is a bad thing?
>Or, that it's _usually_ a good thing, but, in the case of morality, since
>it makes John and Daryl feel morally superior to an individual Southern
>slave owner that grew up in the environment (slavery)? Well, guys, neither
>of you are morally superior to that slave owner, _society_ has changed.
>Is this the type of thinking you're afraid of, John? Do we teach, then, that
>all men that participated in "seperate but equal" were evil/immoral?
> You both make it sound as though there may be something _immoral_
>with respect to "moral relativism". To me, you both fool yourselves into
>this feeling of superiority, morally, over such people. You intentionally
>ignore evidence, and point a moral finger at those who _would_ take
>said evidence into consideration. To me, this is a greater evil- ignorance.
>Do you choose to consider the social environment, or does a Southern man
>who died hundreds of years ago get judged on your terms only, as you
>ignore evidence? Tell me John, is knowledge evil?
Let's do slavery since you want to pretend slavery was "right" in the
ante-bellum South.
Without going into the mechanics of why we had slavery (which in the
earliest parts of this country's history included whites as well as
blacks), I'd instead like to address how the people of the era treated
slaves in a way that may demonstrate their awareness of the fundemental
evil of slavery.
Black slavery was justified because southerners argued they were
"uncivilized savages". Yet it was evident that blacks were able to
learn to read and write (since laws were passed against teaching
blacks), blacks were capable of learning to function in high society
(since many were used as butlers and other more domestic servants),
and blacks were also capable of learning science and the arts (which
they did with little difficulty north of the Mason-Dixon line, much
to the chagrin of southern folk). The very premise upon which slavery
was based - that blacks are "uncivilized savages" was not merely WRONG,
but was enforced and retained by force of law. You could be sentenced
to jail for teaching blacks. Blacks were not allowed to be baptised
because the Christians of the era at least recognized that God would
not like it if they owned other Christian men and women - so clearly
they knew blacks had immortal souls, just as they did. Slaves were
allowed (in some instances) to marry, but the "'til death do you part"
clause was replaced with something allow to the master to dissolve
the marriage by selling one or the other (or both) to separate
individuals.
It wasn't that blacks acted like little children and had to be
"managed" or something. Slave owners recognized that blacks were
people and passed laws to prevent slaves from acting like white
people. If judged against the universal standards for people
capable of managing their own affairs (as opposed to the image
they tried to create of blacks being incompetent little children),
the actions of slave owners were, IN THAT ERA, morally repugnant.
It would be like my taking a hypo full of the HIV virus, injecting
you with it, and then pointing at you and saying "See, Joe's actions
caused him to get AIDS."
Moral relativism is an excuse for not following a consistent set of
moral guidelines. If it isn't OK to drive drunk because you might
kill someone, it also isn't OK to have casual sex because you might
also kill someone (and to about the same annual death rate these
days). If it isn't OK for a thug to punch a pregnant woman in the
stomach because it might kill her child, it also isn't OK for a
doctor to kill the child via an abortion. And so on - moral
relativism allows this magical escape clause which permits people
to exempt themselves from the same rules the rest of society abides
by, simply because they have an excuse "It doesn't apply to me/this
situation/my race/my sexual orientation/my religious group/etc."
Moral relativism has nothing to do with condemning one man for
murdering four women in a yogurt shop but not for condemning the
executioner in a capital punishment case. Jail sentences are not
slavery, as many radical black activists claim, nor is a lawful
execution of a condemned criminal murder. Rather both are the
outcome of a consistent set of moral values - if you commit a
crime, we can lock you up; if you commit a very bad crime, we can
execute you.
Joe Mullally
>>In article <72...@tamsun.tamu.edu> dlb...@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:
>
>The point is that adopting religious beliefs is not a matter of picking
>a model that is most comfortable, with the right amount of power, a good
>price, attractive financing, and the right image for you.
Agreed.
> Religious
>beliefs must be chosen with regard to "correctness" or else one finds
>oneself remaking God in one's own image.
Once you've chosen a religion, you do not then "believe" the teachings,
IMHO; rather, you feel something stronger than belief- faith.
> [Note: I feel this is becoming
>super commonplace these days. Don't like what the holy book in your
>religion says, just neatly re-interpret it out.]
I don't like any part of a religion that furthers the "my team vs.
your team, pick one or the other" notion.
>While I support the notion of long-term change in a species, I do not
>wholly accept the godless interpretation of evolution.
I think creationism and evolution can co-exist.
>As I mentioned, I am *tolerant*. But I will *not* accept certain
>behaviors as valid.
Behaviors, or beliefs?
Patrick Taylor
- PTR
Patrick Taylor
> the confirmation process.
His religious beliefs are irrelevant, even if the affect his decision-making.
What is relevant is how he would arrive at a decision, and what kind of
decisions he will make.
Just for example, I don't care if he's Jewish, Christian, or Scientology,
but what is he going to do about gun control, abortion, AIDS, and sexual
harassment / abuse...
"It is time, gentlemen, that we focused on the issues of the day..."
(used without permission)
- PTR
Patrick Taylor
>JFK's true allegiance was to his penis, I don't see that his being Catholic
>was anywhere near as damaging as his being a Kennedy.
I like that! Right to the point.
Patrick Taylor
> I don't like any part of a religion that furthers the "my team vs.
>your team, pick one or the other" notion.
>
You seem to have a paradox loose in your statement. :-)
Aren't you adding to an existing problem with this attitude? Don't get me
wrong, "my team vs. your team" seems very anti-Christ to me, but to battle
it, we have to be willing to embrace (love) even those who have a "my team
vs. your team" mentality ("enemies"). This could be labelled as strife
between sects (not sex ;-) and is unquestionably un-Christlike.
Joe Mullally
>> Are you saying that "relative" evidence in any case is a bad thing?
>>Or, that it's _usually_ a good thing, but, in the case of morality, since
>>it makes John and Daryl feel morally superior to an individual Southern
>>slave owner that grew up in the environment (slavery)? Well, guys, neither
>>of you are morally superior to that slave owner, _society_ has changed.
>>Is this the type of thinking you're afraid of, John? Do we teach, then, that
>>all men that participated in "seperate but equal" were evil/immoral?
>> You both make it sound as though there may be something _immoral_
>>with respect to "moral relativism". To me, you both fool yourselves into
>>this feeling of superiority, morally, over such people. You intentionally
>>ignore evidence, and point a moral finger at those who _would_ take
>>said evidence into consideration. To me, this is a greater evil- ignorance.
>>Do you choose to consider the social environment, or does a Southern man
>>who died hundreds of years ago get judged on your terms only, as you
>>ignore evidence? Tell me John, is knowledge evil?
>
>Let's do slavery since you want to pretend slavery was "right" in the
>ante-bellum South.
I don't want to "pretend" anything. You're "pretending" that you
_wouldn't_ have been involved in the trade. Did our forefathers not
approve of the slave trade, at least by not outlawing it with the
Constitution? Doesn't this make them _all_ immoral?
>Black slavery was justified because southerners argued they were
>"uncivilized savages".
And, in the North, slavery was known as...
>If judged against the universal standards for people
>capable of managing their own affairs (as opposed to the image
>they tried to create of blacks being incompetent little children),
>the actions of slave owners were, IN THAT ERA, morally repugnant.
Slavery today is more than "morally repugnant", first of all,
and having slavery, then abolishing it, was a process. You look at it
as you wish. Not only did the people of our country voluntarily
relinquish control over an entire group, but many did so at their own
risk, for no gain. When I say "voluntarily", it includes having a faction
that resisted. Show me another society that changed, morally, as did
America. Show me a gov't that admitted to a wrong, and freed the wronged.
Forget about labelling people as "right" or "wrong". I'm not saying that
particular acts, such as slavery, aren't bad. It's just that you don't get
to describe life in such simplistic fashion-"right"/"wrong", if you want
to describe it properly. Perhaps such simple ideas are right for you;
it's too easily done for me to accept.
>Moral relativism is an excuse for not following a consistent set of
>moral guidelines. If it isn't OK to drive drunk because you might
>kill someone, it also isn't OK to have casual sex because you might
>also kill someone (and to about the same annual death rate these
>days).
In the case of casual sex, your chances of getting hurt by another's
action are far, far slimmer than that of drunk drivers. In the case of casual
sex, the "victim" has usually participated in the event willingly. Let's imagine
that a scenario occurs in which we desperately need to increase our population.
Would sex w/ more than one partner be wrong, morally? Suppose there are, on an
island, one male, forty females, and our race is about to expire. Should the
man be morally "wrong" to fertilize all 40 women (assuming none are relatives)?
> If it isn't OK for a thug to punch a pregnant woman in the
>stomach because it might kill her child, it also isn't OK for a
>doctor to kill the child via an abortion.
When I was in high school, and very much against abortion, I
wanted to write such a story, in which the father killed the child as
above. I felt that this 'answered" the question of abortion. Now, I
respect both sides' opinion, and the Supreme Court's decision.
> And so on - moral
>relativism allows this magical escape clause which permits people
>to exempt themselves from the same rules the rest of society abides
>by, simply because they have an excuse "It doesn't apply to me/this
>situation/my race/my sexual orientation/my religious group/etc."
The individual may escape (in the case of slavery), but society
as an excuse means society was at fault. That's what needed to be, and was,
corrected. Again, our society didn't invent slavery, it carried the baton.
It also put the baton down. You want to look only at the fact that we ever
carried the baton, and stop examining reality at that point- so be it. There
were other factors. You choose what to observe, and (to me) do so in a way
that is convenient for you. As though ignoring such isn't enough, though,
you want to point a finger at me, to say "Hey, he doesn't condemn those
evil slave-owners like I do. He must be _bad_". There are 51 trillion
different shades of gray. You want me to agree that everything is really
black and white. It's simpler, but it doesn't fit the reality.
>Moral relativism has nothing to do with condemning one man for
>murdering four women in a yogurt shop but not for condemning the
>executioner in a capital punishment case.
(Morally relative info to follow):
> Jail sentences are not
>slavery, as many radical black activists claim, nor is a lawful
>execution of a condemned criminal murder. Rather both are the
>outcome of a consistent set of moral values - if you commit a
>crime, we can lock you up; if you commit a very bad crime, we can
>execute you.
--
Chris Winemiller
[deleted some comments by others, regarding validity of home schooling on a
national level]
> In a related case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, 1972, Amish were allowed to
> pull their children from public school after the 8th grade, though state
> law mandated compulsory attendance until the age of 16. Amish religion
> prohibits school attendance beyond the 8th grade. The Amish created their
> own "vocational" schools which satisfied the Court. I hope that what you
> propose isn't allowed (teaching at home).
Teaching at home is already allowed, in Texas and many other states. It's a
completely legitimate form of teaching. Parents who elect such a form of
teaching their children should have access to vouchers just like any other
parents who have children to educate. "Compulsory attendance" does not mean
"attendance at an institution outside the home whose purpose is to provide
education." It means that parents are responsible to educate their
children. The location in which it occurs is irrelevant. Apparently,
people in Wisconsin have chosen otherwise.
> I will say that things may be slipping out of control, as far as
> the vouchers are concerned. It seems to me that we forget where the funds
> came from in the 1st place.
I remember exactly where the funds came from: _my_ pocket! (And your
pocket!) It's _our_ money, not "the government's" money.
> The gov't is, in effect, managing our resources
> in order to provide what we desire- educational facilities.
In my opinion, the government (at least, the Federal government) has no
business sticking its Federal nose into the business of forcing my child's
education to conform to its own liking. _I_ am responsible to educate my
child, not the government. _I_ have legal right and responsibility to
educate my child, not the government. Personally, I also think the state
government should have no say as well. If you're concerned about standards,
you can choose to let the government provide some that will become accepted
yardsticks for measuring progress. The private sector, though, is perhaps
better at doing that.
[deletions]
> Let's imagine that instead of accumulating _all_ of the funds,
> then distributing them, that the gov't says each individual _must_ give
> (the taxable amount that ends up going to schools with our current system)
> to the school which their child attends. Suddenly, the gov't has _no_
> religious entanglement. That seems fair, and Constitutional, to me.
Sounds interesting: abolish all school taxes and make parents directly
responsible for funding their children's education directly. Private
schools, anyone? :-)
Chris
--
Chris Winemiller Internet: cwin...@keys.lonestar.org
UUCP : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
texsun!digi!keys!cwinemil
Chris Winemiller
[deletions]
> I will never support one penny of my tax dollars going to support ANY form of
> religious education, directly or indirectly.
Well, then, you better look twice at your public schools. Though I did not
attend Texas public schools (I was raised in Ohio), my wife did. And nearly
20 years ago the high school was teaching "values clarification" which
itself had a very definite (and, by the way, unChristian) moral bias.
Moreover, she had a math teacher who taught students TM (Transcendental
Meditation) during math class! (Not officially sanctioned by the school.)
Her teachers also encouraged students to rebel against parental authority.
My point is this: there is no such thing as amoral teaching. Your children
(and mine) _are_ being taught someone's world view and moral ethic; you'd
better check and see if it agrees with what you want your children to accept
as truth! If you are more "open minded," then you ought to at least ensure
that your children are properly exposed to accurate presentations of
multiple belief systems; they certainly won't get such unbiased
presentations in public school.
Joe Mullally
The statement I made was in reference to people creating their
own religions, or modifying existing ones "to fit". To me, this hints
that the modifications are for selfish reasons. Also, while I agree
that my sentiment could be construed as inciteful, it's not. I disagree
with other religious philosophies, but I exclude none of them from
being "right".
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John F Haugh II
> I don't want to "pretend" anything. You're "pretending" that you
>_wouldn't_ have been involved in the trade. Did our forefathers not
>approve of the slave trade, at least by not outlawing it with the
>Constitution? Doesn't this make them _all_ immoral?
I encourage you to review the acts which created this nation. Jefferson
proposed outlawing slavery, but several of the southern states rebelled
and threatened to not support the new nation.
I would not have engaged "in the trade" and would have acted to abolish
it, as many other abolishists did. The contradictions present, which
include many based on Jefferson's statement that "All men are created
Equal". It does not say "All white men" or "All free men", but "ALL
MEN".
> And, in the North, slavery was known as...
What? Slavery was abolished years before because it was unprofitable.
New York State at one time produced a considerable amount of agricultural
goods and used slavery for that purpose. However, well before the
American Revolution, it abolished slavery. Not on moral grounds, but on
economic ones.
> Slavery today is more than "morally repugnant", first of all,
>and having slavery, then abolishing it, was a process. You look at it
>as you wish. Not only did the people of our country voluntarily
>relinquish control over an entire group, but many did so at their own
>risk, for no gain. When I say "voluntarily", it includes having a faction
>that resisted. Show me another society that changed, morally, as did
>America. Show me a gov't that admitted to a wrong, and freed the wronged.
>Forget about labelling people as "right" or "wrong". I'm not saying that
>particular acts, such as slavery, aren't bad. It's just that you don't get
>to describe life in such simplistic fashion-"right"/"wrong", if you want
>to describe it properly. Perhaps such simple ideas are right for you;
>it's too easily done for me to accept.
Great Britian? Please, slavery has been legal in most of the world at
one time or another. One very common source of slaves from African tribes
which had captured other Africans in wars. This has historically been the
most common means of collecting slaves - it worked in Egypt and Rome. It
worked in the Colonies.
The very notion of war is completely un-Christian. A trade which is based
on the spoils of war is likewise un-Christian. To claim this "special
exemption" for slaves because they were somehow inferior does not make it
morally right. Against the Christian values of the 17th through 19th
centuries when slavery was legal on this continent, slavery was still
morally wrong.
I don't allow myself the luxury of peeking around corners to see who will
benefit from their immoral actions. I don't peek at slave owners and see
that they get to make money and since they need money, it's OK. I judge
things against the professed values of the people who are committing the
acts. If the political leaders of both the USA and CSA were intolerant
of the raiding armies taking back war spoils, I see no reason to not hold
the accountable for tolerating slaves when slaves were merely war spoils
from a different continent.
> In the case of casual sex, your chances of getting hurt by another's
>action are far, far slimmer than that of drunk drivers. In the case of casual
>sex, the "victim" has usually participated in the event willingly. Let's imagine
>that a scenario occurs in which we desperately need to increase our population.
>Would sex w/ more than one partner be wrong, morally? Suppose there are, on an
>island, one male, forty females, and our race is about to expire. Should the
>man be morally "wrong" to fertilize all 40 women (assuming none are relatives)?
Please, straw men are always such fun. The exception does not make the rule,
it merely points out that you can be creative and come up with some wacko
case that requires a little more thought.
The favorite example of my old logic instructor was to say that if blue
cows could fly, we have to carry umbrellas all the time. Most people
would agree that some means of protection would be required, but none of
us has yet to find a blue cow that can fly. Likewise, the human population
consists of more than 1 male and 40 females. To come up with a similiar
straw man, suppose we discover that the HIV virus really may not show up
for several years, and that 100 percent of the people having casual sex
contract the HIV virus immediately regardless of what contraceptives are
being used. Ooooo. Sounds like casual sex is certainly EVIL and IMMORAL
for sure. Of course if that were the case, people would agree that there
is no such thing as "safe sex" and that abstinence would be mandated by
law. That isn't the case, so the condemnation of casual sex takes a bit
more effort.
> When I was in high school, and very much against abortion, I
>wanted to write such a story, in which the father killed the child as
>above. I felt that this 'answered" the question of abortion. Now, I
>respect both sides' opinion, and the Supreme Court's decision.
Did you respect the Supreme Court's decision prior to Jane Roe purjuring
herself? You do know that she admitted she lied under oath to help her
case.
> (Morally relative info to follow):
>
>> Jail sentences are not
>>slavery, as many radical black activists claim, nor is a lawful
>>execution of a condemned criminal murder. Rather both are the
>>outcome of a consistent set of moral values - if you commit a
>>crime, we can lock you up; if you commit a very bad crime, we can
>>execute you.
No, we have a moral system which says "You may not kill someone, and
if you do, we reserve the right to kill you." Not "You may kill
someone if you need his wallet and we'll apply our moral system relative
to your beliefs." It isn't the values that are relative, it is their
application with respect to the person committing the action.
For example, some people believe that a poor person may steal food if
they are really hungry and his hunger makes it OK. But a rich person
may not do the same thing. What's being questioned isn't whether or not
theft is OK, but whether or not it is OK for one person and not for
another. In this particular case, our Constitution promises equal
protection under the law, not "if you are rich you can be the victim of
crime and we won't care."
Likewise, the question is not the legitimacy of imprisoning someone, but
rather the allegation that imprisonment is really slavery and executions
are really murder. Society has reserved the right to protect itself,
and makes it known that crime will not be tolerated. If the rules were
different, I'm certain peoples actions would be different as well. I
for one would keep the pistol cocked and locked on a loaded chamber
and I'd probably spend a lot more time at the pistol range. Instead,
we try to get people to act more "civilized" so that we aren't forced
back into a "clubs and caves" mode of existence.
John F Haugh II
Hmmm. I won't touch that pun with a - well, I don't think I want to
even think about what I won't touch that with. God only knows where
he's pointed that pointy thing anyway ...
[ Oh, I'm the type of guy
That likes to sleep around
I love 'em and I leave 'em
I roam from town to town
'Cuz I'm a Kennedy,
Yes, I'm Ted Kennedy,
I sleep around around around ... ]
Thanks to Rush Limbaugh for that one ;-)
John F Haugh II
>>While I support the notion of long-term change in a species, I do not
>>wholly accept the godless interpretation of evolution.
>
> I think creationism and evolution can co-exist.
I think he was quite specific in his statement. He does not accept the
interpretation that evolution occured in a godless fashion. I accept
evolution as the mechanism which God has used to create the universe.
Since God does not specify the mechanism used to create everything, I
find that evolution could certainly be a mechanism that He might have
chosen. It's like using a wrench or vicegrips to turn a bolt - a
professional mechanic would use the wrench, but not everyone owns a
complete set of wrenches and some don't understand how to use vicegrips.
Denying evolution is a lot like denying gravity and replacing it with
the statement that the Earth sucks. Yes, the Earth certainly does "suck",
but that doesn't do you much good when you have to explain why everything
else in the universe also sucks ...
John Iacoletti
|> What you don't understand is that government money is not being spent
|> on the religious classes.
[. . .]
|> Peter da Silva often complains about football teams being paid for with
|> government money. The same analysis would hold true here. If the
|> state gives Small Town High $3,000 to give your child <X> mandatory
|> education, and <X> does not include <football>, any <football> team is
|> not being paid for with the state's money, so long as Small Town High
|> meets the standards required of all other schools.
What you're forgetting is that football is (or can be) self-supporting
through ticket sales. I suppose you could "pass the plate" in bible
club.
Football is also extra-curricular, done after hours, and is quite
voluntary.
|> If the school is allowed
|> to use government money to pay for non-required subjects (how much is
|> the state paying for the Chess Club?), the school must be allowed to
|> use government money for ANY non-required subject (The answer to "How
|> much would the state be paying for football" is identical to "How much
|> would the state be paying for religious instruction").
There is no ruling which prohibits excessive government entanglement
with chess, but I'm willing to compromise. If the religious
instruction is self-supporting, pays the school for the use of the
meeting room, is done after hours with no academic credit given, is
completely voluntary with no express or implied coercion on the part
of the school to attend, then I would accept the same conditions being
placed on football or chess.
--
John Iacoletti Internet: joh...@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
IBM Advanced Workstations Div. "If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't
Austin, TX have any appointments." -- TMBG
My opinions do not reflect the views of the IBM Corporation
John Iacoletti
|> This is called moral relativism. Taken to a logical extreme, it's quite simple
|> to say that killing people is OK for one man because it's "right" for him. Or
|> that the racially-based slavery that existed in the US through the 19th
|> century was OK for them because it was acceptable then.
Yes, that's exactly what it means. Why is it so hard for you to
accept this? It seems pretty obvious from looking at people's
behavior that different people adhere to different moral and ethical
standards.
John Iacoletti
|> Let's imagine that instead of accumulating _all_ of the funds,
|> then distributing them, that the gov't says each individual _must_ give
|> (the taxable amount that ends up going to schools with our current system)
|> to the school which their child attends. Suddenly, the gov't has _no_
|> religious entanglement. That seems fair, and Constitutional, to me.
It sounds like government entanglement to me. Who is going to enforce
this?
John Iacoletti
|> >I hope that what youpropose isn't allowed (teaching at home).
|>
|> Why not? The few examples I've seen indicate the home schooling does
|> a pretty good job of teaching traditional material. College educated
|> parents shouldn't have any problems teaching their kids through a good
|> portion of the high school level. Use some standard to ensure that
|> home schooled kids are getting the minimal level of education and you'll
|> do fine.
I've talked to home-schoolers and in general they tend to be "control
freaks". They don't want their children even exposed to alternative
viewpoints. I think this is counter-productive. The way you learn to
think is by considering alternative viewpoints.
On the positive side, the personal attention aspect makes it very
attractive. Not everyone is qualified or capable of teaching--even if
he thoroughly understands the material, so it seems reasonable to
require some kind of proficiency tracking. Another thing to keep in
mind, and most home-schoolers do, is the social learning which goes on
just by interacting with other children. This is usually accomplished
by having frequent get-togethers with other home-schooled children.
One last thing to consider (and this isn't an argument against
home-schooling but something to think about) is that sometimes the
only people who can detect that child abuse or neglect is occurring
is the school teachers. Remeber the home-schooled boy who they found
chained to a radiator and straving to death?
John Iacoletti
|> education, but rather that they don't need to have immorality and
|> "moral relativism" taught to them.
I think it's time to get specific here. In your experience, how is
immorality and moral relativism being taught in the public schools?
|> You don't want religious instruction, good for you, your
|> kids aren't getting it. But I don't want my (unborn) kids to
|> receive 8 hours a day of immorality indoctrination
I don't either, but I'm skeptical that this is actually occurring.
John Iacoletti
|> Here's where we have a bit of a problem, John. I understand that
|> our public officials are influenced by their religious/moral beliefs.
|> I don't think that there's anything wrong with that.
I do. Representatives should *represent* the will of their
constituents, even if it conflicts with their own values. Instead
they take it upon themselves to decide what is best for us.
John Iacoletti
|> Actually, I'd prefer to get Social Security done this way, at
|> least. I mean, I can understand why our gov't, benevolent Uncle Sam,
|> wants to help us by forcing us to set money aside. But, why don't they
|> legislate that I must set x$ aside in a retirement fund of my choosing
Because that's not the purpose of Social Security (despite what Uncle
Sam tells you). It's really a forced charitable contribution to the
nation's elderly. When it was first established, they needed the
money right then. They couldn't wait until the working people at the
time turned 65 to start distributing the money.
Publius
>
> ... Representatives should *represent* the will of their
>constituents, even if it conflicts with their own values.
But this is NOT what the founding fathers had in mind when they
designed our representative democracy. Read the Federalist Papers.
I believe this was discussed in either #10 or #11. Representatives
are expected to be DISINTERESTED participants in the group decision making.
They are supposed to be disassociated from the local interests of
their constituents. For this reason, a representative can NOT be
recalled by his/her constituents under our Constitution. This is
a major difference between our Madisonian democracy and the Europian
style parlimentarian systems.
> ... Instead
>they take it upon themselves to decide what is best for us.
This is exactly what they are supposed to do, according to James Madison.
Regards,
-- Publius
--
For Christ and His Kingdom
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are mine and not my employer's.
Joe Mullally
>|> Let's imagine that instead of accumulating _all_ of the funds,
>|> then distributing them, that the gov't says each individual _must_ give
>|> (the taxable amount that ends up going to schools with our current system)
>|> to the school which their child attends. Suddenly, the gov't has _no_
>|> religious entanglement. That seems fair, and Constitutional, to me.
>
>It sounds like government entanglement to me. Who is going to enforce
>this?
Well, this idea's still under construction. (-: I think the
tax form "option" is as close as we can get to keeping the gov't
unentangled, and still offering Americans more choice.
Joe Mullally
>|> Actually, I'd prefer to get Social Security done this way, at
>|> least. I mean, I can understand why our gov't, benevolent Uncle Sam,
>|> wants to help us by forcing us to set money aside. But, why don't they
>|> legislate that I must set x$ aside in a retirement fund of my choosing
>
>Because that's not the purpose of Social Security (despite what Uncle
>Sam tells you). It's really a forced charitable contribution to the
>nation's elderly. When it was first established, they needed the
>money right then. They couldn't wait until the working people at the
>time turned 65 to start distributing the money.
Agreed. I may have mentioned this before, but it's funny, and
worth repeating. There's a black comedian named George Wallace. He asks:
"If the life expectancy for a black man is 65, why am _I_ paying
social security?" (The life expectancy for black males has recently been
reported to have risen, I think beyond 65- maybe a response to this
joke?) (-:
John F Haugh II
>immorality and moral relativism being taught in the public schools?
Certainly.
My belief system holds that human life is sacred and that sex outside
of marriage is unacceptable. The schools now teach that sex outside
of marriage is perfectly acceptable by promoting "safe sex". Schools
teach that abortion is acceptable. They provide literature telling
how to get an abortion, but so far as I know, they provide no literature
giving my religious views. Either schools should stay away from moral
issues (such as sex outside of marriage). While you would argue that
having the school dispense religious information is religious entanglement,
I'd prefer to think of it as "equal time for an opposing point of view."
>|> You don't want religious instruction, good for you, your
>|> kids aren't getting it. But I don't want my (unborn) kids to
>|> receive 8 hours a day of immorality indoctrination
>
>I don't either, but I'm skeptical that this is actually occurring.
When a child goes from being perfectly well behaved in one grade
to being a behavior problem in the next, and the reason seems related
to a teacher that doesn't give a shit about your moral values, it's
pretty hard to argue that teachers are morally indoctrinating our
kids. I went through several years of having kids in the Plano
school system and having a wife who worked for PISD. I'm not blaming
the teachers for all the problems of the school system - certainly
parents are responsible for much of it. But teachers either do
nothing to undo the damage caused by other children or actively
contribute to the problem.
Just one question - do you consider dispensing condoms and "safe sex"
literature to be indoctrinating a child?
John F Haugh II
>constituents, even if it conflicts with their own values. Instead
>they take it upon themselves to decide what is best for us.
I think there is an interpretation problem here. Some of us people
who elected those people who you think are taking "it upon themselves
to decide what is best for us" picked them to do precisely what they
are doing. I for one was very happy with Ronald Reagan. Were you?
One point I've been trying to make is that often politicians are
selected according to their values by people who share the same values.
This is usually referred to as "self selection" and is the tendency
of people to associate with other people like them, where "like them"
might be "white like me" or "conservative like me" or even "Christian
like me". I have very few black lesbian communist surfer chick friends,
and I don't think it's because they don't exist - I just happen to have
completely different interests than those of a person fitting that
description, but were I a black lesbian communist surfer chick, I'd bet
you most of my friends would have several of those qualities. I'm not
out to rid the world of BLCSC's, but I would never vote for one for
political office. I sincerely doubt that such an individual as that
would be able to represent my interests very effectively.
John F Haugh II
>through ticket sales. I suppose you could "pass the plate" in bible
>club.
High school football isn't self supporting. The equipment costs hundreds
of dollars per player, and there are dozens of players. The facilities
cost into the millions. My high school (East Jefferson Sr. High) regularly
played in the Louisiana Super Dome and drew a few thousand students, all of
whom paid $2 or so to attend.
>Football is also extra-curricular, done after hours, and is quite
>voluntary.
Sure. So is a bible study group. Which is permitted on campus and
which isn't?
>There is no ruling which prohibits excessive government entanglement
>with chess, but I'm willing to compromise. If the religious
>instruction is self-supporting, pays the school for the use of the
>meeting room, is done after hours with no academic credit given, is
>completely voluntary with no express or implied coercion on the part
>of the school to attend, then I would accept the same conditions being
>placed on football or chess.
The incremental cost of having a class room full of bible thumpers versus
a class room full of chess players is 0. No public school (that I'm aware
of) has mandatory religion classes (or even un-mandatory ones ...).
All I want is the same rights the chess club has. I get to stick little
paper flyers on people lockers. I get to have announcements made over
the PA system. And I get to have an interested teacher supervise the
class. Hell, I might even get to use the school bus to take me to meet
with other people that are interested in this same thing I'm interested
in. If chess clubs can use the bus, why can't bible clubs?
You keep putting this peephole into the 1st Amendment. When asked the
question "Can <X> activity use the school facilities after hours", the
only way you can answer the question is to see if <X> is "bible study".
Some how this doesn't sound like you've avoided "excessive government
entanglement in" religion. Quite the opposite. Seems like you've
got government quite entangled in religion.
You want to know where your Bill of Rights went? It went straight down
the crapper when you started letting little exceptions get made. You
can prevent religion because we have to have the peephole. You can
outlaw gun ownership because we might resort to the wild west. You
can have illegal search and seizure because we have to catch drug
dealers. You can ignore due process because it just gets in the way
of catching criminals. And so on - when you don't erect a wall of
separation that makes government completely disinterested in religion,
including both disinterested in its advance or decline, you erode the
1st Amendment. You are to the 1st what gun-grabbers are to the 2nd
and war-on-druggers-at-all-costs are to the 4th and 5th.
It's that damned peephole that is eroding the 1st. It's the "peephole"
aimed at pornography that is tearing away at free press, and the
"peephole" aimed at political expression that is working on free speech.
The strength of the requirement that government make "no law respecting the
establishment of religion" is just as strong as the requirement that
government leave the free press alone. Without the peephole you've aimed
at religion there would no way for the government to know if I am having
a bible study or a chess tournament. Without the peephole others have
aimed at pornography, the government would have no way to know what
"appeals to the purient interests" even means. Without the peephole aimed
at political expression, flag burning would be no different from carrying
signs saying Bush is a fink.
In each of those examples, a special exception has to be made to justify
the action.
karissa walden
crusades even take place in the first place. That was a totally "Christian"
war?
Karissa
John F Haugh II
No. It was a series of wars to stroke the egos of certain individuals.
Christ's two commandments were "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "Love
the Lord your God with all your heart". Anything which does not conform
to those two commandments is NOT Christian. This includes (but is not
limited to) Televandalists who sucker people out of their money, Ministers
who practice scare tactics and drive away more members than they bring in,
and religious leaders who teach populist dogma while ignoring the harm
caused by whatever that dogma is (sex outside of marriage v. teen pregnancy
being one example).
Peter da Silva
> I do. Representatives should *represent* the will of their
> constituents, even if it conflicts with their own values.
That's tough.
Personally I'd rather be represented by another techy than a lawyer.
Anyone want to argue for occupational quotas in the legislature?
--
-- Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1.
-- `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
-- 'U`
Peter da Silva
> What you're forgetting is that football is (or can be) self-supporting
> through ticket sales. I suppose you could "pass the plate" in bible
> club.
Yes, you could.
> Football is also extra-curricular, done after hours, and is quite
> voluntary.
Come again? Quite voluntary?
> There is no ruling which prohibits excessive government entanglement
> with chess, but I'm willing to compromise.
You haven't seen the religious devotion of some chess players. :->
Peter da Silva
> moral guidelines.
Hi!
"Moral relativism" is a phrase made up by people who can't imagine a
moral or ethical system that isn't enforced by an ultimate authority
figure.
> If it isn't OK to drive drunk because you might
> kill someone, it also isn't OK to have casual sex because you might
> also kill someone (and to about the same annual death rate these
> days).
If only people who were driving drunk were injured in automobile accidents
I would grant you an equivalence. Driving drunk is like engaging in unsafe
sex while knowing yourself to be infected.
> If it isn't OK for a thug to punch a pregnant woman in the
> stomach because it might kill her child, it also isn't OK for a
> doctor to kill the child via an abortion.
No, it isn't OK for a thug to punch *anyone* in the stomach.
Peter da Silva
> Suppose there are, on an
> island, one male, forty females, and our race is about to expire. Should
> the man be morally "wrong" to fertilize all 40 women (assuming none are
> relatives)?
Why should that make a difference? Even if they were, *everyone* in the F1
generation is going to be related. Keeping those genes those women *don't*
share with him is much more important than holding off recessives for one
generation, at best.
Peter da Silva
> of marriage is perfectly acceptable by promoting "safe sex".
"3 out of 4 dentists recommend Dentyne for their patients who chew gum"
> Schools teach that abortion is acceptable.
They teach that it is possible, and they DON'T teach it 8 hours a day...
more like 1 hour a semester. If you can't teach your children that
it's not acceptable in the remaining however many hundred hours *you*
get for moral instruction, then you have more of a problem with your
kids than that.
They probably spend more than that on Xtianity just in U.S. history.
Now as to the quality of the teachers, and what BS teachers might be
putting into their lessons, I quite agree. But you already know my
opinion of the U.S. educational system.
My point is that you're attacking the curriculum. That's not the problem.
Peter da Silva
> a class room full of chess players is 0.
Actually, the incremental cost of having a classroom full of students who
clean up after themselves over an ampty classroom is pretty damn close to
zero. Remember, classrooms are deliberately low-maintainance.
Peter da Silva
Were you? Personally, I tend to like a lot (not all) of his stated
politics. What I don't like is that the man seems to have been almost
completely incompetant.
John Iacoletti
|> of marriage is unacceptable. The schools now teach that sex outside
|> of marriage is perfectly acceptable by promoting "safe sex".
No they aren't. Teaching somebody how to use a condom isn't the same
as saying "go have sex before marriage". Maybe they're teaching them
how to use a condom on their wedding night.
|> Schools
|> teach that abortion is acceptable. They provide literature telling
|> how to get an abortion, but so far as I know, they provide no literature
|> giving my religious views.
Huh? I can see it now:
HOW TO GET AN ABORTION:
1) go to abortion clinic
2) get abortion
3) pay clinic
4) leave
Please send me one of these pamphlets. I would love to see who would
pay for stating the obvious. Even if they did distribute such a
thing, it wouldn't mean that doing so is acceptable. Do you see the
difference between just stating the facts, and making a value
judgement?
|> Either schools should stay away from moral
|> issues (such as sex outside of marriage). While you would argue that
|> having the school dispense religious information is religious entanglement,
|> I'd prefer to think of it as "equal time for an opposing point of view."
I agree. Schools shouldn't say "go have sex", and neither should they
say "don't have sex". However, I don't think that teaching the
details of human reproduction is the same as saying "go have sex".
Ignorance is not bliss.
|> When a child goes from being perfectly well behaved in one grade
|> to being a behavior problem in the next, and the reason seems related
|> to a teacher that doesn't give a shit about your moral values, it's
|> pretty hard to argue that teachers are morally indoctrinating our
|> kids.
I guess it's appealing to want to place the blame on somebody, but
it's rarely that simple. I would say that it is pretty normal for
kids to misbehave, regardless of their environment.
|> Just one question - do you consider dispensing condoms and "safe sex"
|> literature to be indoctrinating a child?
I don't approve of dispensing condoms, but for a different reason.
Namely that they can go to the drug store and buy their own.
If the safe sex literature just presents "the facts" and makes no
moral judgements, then I consider it no more indoctrination than
literature which teaches the quadratic equation.
--
John Iacoletti Internet: joh...@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
IBM Advanced Workstations Div. "If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't
Austin, TX have any appointment." -- TMBG
John Iacoletti/100000
|> who elected those people who you think are taking "it upon themselves
|> to decide what is best for us" picked them to do precisely what they
|> are doing. I for one was very happy with Ronald Reagan. Were you?
Not really. I voted for Mondale. As with most Republicans, I
approved of most of his fiscal policies, but I disapproved of his
positions on personal rights. Personal rights are more important to
me.
I was thinking more of people like that state representative (I forgot
who) who opposed the lottery on his own moral grounds even though a
poll in his district showed a high approval rate. He said something
like "We should do what we think is best for the people, not what they
want us to do".
--
John Iacoletti Internet: joh...@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
IBM Advanced Workstations Div. "If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't
Austin, TX have any appointment." -- TMBG
John Iacoletti/100000
|> of dollars per player, and there are dozens of players. The facilities
|> cost into the millions. My high school (East Jefferson Sr. High) regularly
|> played in the Louisiana Super Dome and drew a few thousand students, all of
|> whom paid $2 or so to attend.
Well it should be self-supporting as far as I'm concerned.
|> >Football is also extra-curricular, done after hours, and is quite
|> >voluntary.
|>
|> Sure. So is a bible study group. Which is permitted on campus and
|> which isn't?
Both are--since the "equal-access" ruling.
|> The incremental cost of having a class room full of bible thumpers versus
|> a class room full of chess players is 0. No public school (that I'm aware
|> of) has mandatory religion classes (or even un-mandatory ones ...).
Maybe so, but a lot of people in this country are advocating a return
to forced prayer (including the Pledge of Allegiance) and Christian
moral indoctrination in the public schools.
|> All I want is the same rights the chess club has. I get to stick little
|> paper flyers on people lockers. I get to have announcements made over
|> the PA system. And I get to have an interested teacher supervise the
|> class. Hell, I might even get to use the school bus to take me to meet
|> with other people that are interested in this same thing I'm interested
|> in. If chess clubs can use the bus, why can't bible clubs?
Personally, I'd rather stop of all of these from using school
resources. Sometimes we forget what the school's main purpose is.
|> You keep putting this peephole into the 1st Amendment. When asked the
|> question "Can <X> activity use the school facilities after hours", the
|> only way you can answer the question is to see if <X> is "bible study".
|> Some how this doesn't sound like you've avoided "excessive government
|> entanglement in" religion. Quite the opposite. Seems like you've
|> got government quite entangled in religion.
Right. As I stated in my previous post, I'd rather the answer to
"Can <X> activity use the school facilities after hours?" be
"Yes, if the <X> participants pay their own expenses, and restrict
their activities to non-school hours". For any <X>. Then the school
just becomes a lessor of meeting space.
This is so beautiful it brought tears to my eyes. I couldn't agree
more. I have, however, seen you argue for illegal search and seizure
in the name of protecting the public. I have perhaps unfairly painted
you in my own mind as somebody who would argue against pornography and
against legal flag-burning. I now see that this was unjustified.
--
John Iacoletti Internet: joh...@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
IBM Advanced Workstations Div. "If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't
Austin, TX have any appointment." -- TMBG
John Iacoletti
|> jo...@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
|> > Football is also extra-curricular, done after hours, and is quite
|> > voluntary.
|>
|> Come again? Quite voluntary?
It is voluntary for a student to participate on the team, or to go to
a game.
--
John Iacoletti Internet: joh...@hwperform.austin.ibm.com
IBM Advanced Workstations Div. "If it wasn't for disappointment, I wouldn't
Austin, TX have any appointment." -- TMBG
Joe Mullally
>In article <1992Jan02.2...@NeoSoft.com> ro...@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>> I don't want to "pretend" anything. You're "pretending" that you
>>_wouldn't_ have been involved in the trade. Did our forefathers not
>>approve of the slave trade, at least by not outlawing it with the
>>Constitution? Doesn't this make them _all_ immoral?
>
>I encourage you to review the acts which created this nation. Jefferson
>proposed outlawing slavery, but several of the southern states rebelled
>and threatened to not support the new nation.
Is accepting slavery not immoral, regardless? Jefferson owned slaves,
as you know. As well, are you not giving "relative" information, here, with
regard to "morality"?
>I would not have engaged "in the trade" and would have acted to abolish
>it, as many other abolishists did.
Now, we enter into the area I call ethics. Ethically, I don't allow
myself to make such judgements. Are you perpared to say, too, that you would
have recognized that Copernicus was right? You are basing how you would have
acted _then_ on your upbringing _now_. I'm saying that your upbringing _then_
could quite possibly have been different.
> The contradictions present, which
>include many based on Jefferson's statement that "All men are created
>Equal". It does not say "All white men" or "All free men", but "ALL
>MEN".
You would have surely discovered gravity before Newton, too. The
contradictions present, such as "things fall when you drop them" would
have been the key. Things do not "fall up" or "fall sideways". How smart
you are. To me, it wreaks, ethically, to make such claims. I think that
your Bible may make some mention of judgementalism; check it out.
>Against the Christian values of the 17th through 19th
>centuries when slavery was legal on this continent, slavery was still
>morally wrong.
Were not all of the founders immoral, then?
>I don't allow myself the luxury of peeking around corners to see who will
>benefit from their immoral actions.
Then morals take precedence over survival? No, morals grew out of,
and are completely subject to, survival. You dismissed my island analogy.
Very well. What about the early days of mankind? Was it immoral to have sex
out of wedlock? Was it immoral to kill now endangered animals? Is it immoral
today? Is it immoral to burn down forests? Was it, then?
>>Would sex w/ more than one partner be wrong, morally? Suppose there are, on an
>>island, one male, forty females, and our race is about to expire. Should the
>>man be morally "wrong" to fertilize all 40 women (assuming none are relatives)?
>
>Please, straw men are always such fun. The exception does not make the rule,
>it merely points out that you can be creative and come up with some wacko
>case that requires a little more thought.
No, the example demonstrates that survival takes precendence. You
want to have me believe that morals are absolute, never-changing. Survival
is the key. Recognizing that morality is based upon survival allows that
morality is subjective. We may need to do tomorrow that which is immoral today,
in order to survive. If so, I assure you that even you will allow the
"immoral" acts. This thread began with our discussion of "usual morals".
I'm telling you that kids reject moral "rights/wrongs", especially in
an oppressive situation. Your having confused the morality with it's
seed- survival- is hurting you and I.I'll tell my child that having sex
endangers him/her. You tell yours that it's "wrong". Let's compare notes
in 10 years.
>The favorite example of my old logic instructor was to say that if blue
>cows could fly, we have to carry umbrellas all the time. Most people
>would agree that some means of protection would be required, but none of
>us has yet to find a blue cow that can fly.
Let's apply this to space flight, nuclear plants, and nuclear
waste. Let's throw out all of the "what-ifs", and use this line of
reasoning: "Sure, but do blue cows fly?"
> Likewise, the human population
>consists of more than 1 male and 40 females.
Yet, if it didn't, morality would have to be amended.
> To come up with a similiar
>straw man, suppose we discover that the HIV virus really may not show up
>for several years, and that 100 percent of the people having casual sex
>contract the HIV virus immediately regardless of what contraceptives are
>being used. Ooooo. Sounds like casual sex is certainly EVIL and IMMORAL
>for sure.
It shows that it endangers survival. Moralisms to follow. I see
your moralisms as trains. Well, why do we need cars when trains can transport
us? Because each individual is going someplace different. Because society
has changed. We have flying blue cows; face it or get hit with a pile. That's
what happened, in the "sexual revolution".
>Did you respect the Supreme Court's decision prior to Jane Roe purjuring
>herself? You do know that she admitted she lied under oath to help her
>case.
No, I didn't know that. Hopefully, with this now known, the
Supreme Court will reconsider the case. I'll support either decision.
>No, we have a moral system which says "You may not kill someone, and
>if you do, we reserve the right to kill you."
You make a deterrent sound "wrong" with this definition. The law
effectively states that you will have accepted the connsequences of your
actions, should you commit murder. We don't want to kill murderers, we want
to prevent murder.
>For example, some people believe that a poor person may steal food if
>they are really hungry and his hunger makes it OK.
Recognizing the reason for the theft to not be "wrong" morality
will help fix the problem. Passing judgement on the act does nothing, in this
case, except place a convenient wall of seperation between yourself and the
act. Do you drive a car? Or, do you take trains?
>we try to get people to act more "civilized" so that we aren't forced
>back into a "clubs and caves" mode of existence.
Exactly.
Joe Mullally
>In article <14...@awdprime.UUCP> joh...@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
>>I think it's time to get specific here. In your experience, how is
>>immorality and moral relativism being taught in the public schools?
>
>Certainly.
>
>My belief system holds that human life is sacred and that sex outside
>of marriage is unacceptable.
What about gays?
> The schools now teach that sex outside
>of marriage is perfectly acceptable by promoting "safe sex".
They are promoting "safe sex" over "unsafe sex".
> Schools
>teach that abortion is acceptable.
No, they don't _teach_ this.
> They provide literature telling
>how to get an abortion
Yes, and they should stop doing both.
>, but so far as I know, they provide no literature
>giving my religious views.
Shouldn't do that, either.
> Either schools should stay away from moral
>issues (such as sex outside of marriage).
As approached, it is a survival issue. The reason I'm against it
is that it does imply approval, and it is unfair to you and other people
with regard to moral systems.
>Just one question - do you consider dispensing condoms and "safe sex"
>literature to be indoctrinating a child?
It's close enough. Let's ban it.
Joe Mullally
>paper flyers on people lockers. I get to have announcements made over
>the PA system. And I get to have an interested teacher supervise the
>class. Hell, I might even get to use the school bus to take me to meet
>with other people that are interested in this same thing I'm interested
>in. If chess clubs can use the bus, why can't bible clubs?
Ah, there's the rub. You can start a religious group. You can't
distribute papers. You can't use the bus. If you want the choice to be
all or nothing, you'll wind up with nothing. If you want to claim that
the chess group must follow equal rules, then get rid of the chess group, too.
Good for you.
>You keep putting this peephole into the 1st Amendment. When asked the
>question "Can <X> activity use the school facilities after hours", the
>only way you can answer the question is to see if <X> is "bible study".
>Some how this doesn't sound like you've avoided "excessive government
>entanglement in" religion. Quite the opposite. Seems like you've
>got government quite entangled in religion.
With regard to $$, use of the bus is entanglement. With regard to
the papers being distributed, you've taken the rights of the other children,
and their parents, away. Allowing the groups as they do now is the least
entangled, if you will.
>You want to know where your Bill of Rights went? It went straight down
>the crapper when you started letting little exceptions get made. You
>can prevent religion because we have to have the peephole.
Not really. There are folks on the other side of the wall that
scream about gov't funds going towards religions, religious groups. What
you'd term removal of the peephole, they'd term removal of their rights,
and ignorance of the 1st amendment's guarantee that gov't will not push any,
nor all, religion.
> You can
>outlaw gun ownership because we might resort to the wild west.
I still see no problem, and no condemnation of guns, in this. If
more people are carrying guns, how will it _not_ be more like the old
west? In the old west, for example, an individual had more control over
his/her preservation.
Josh Fielek
Okay, I'm going to toss an electric eel in the bathtub.
John - would you allow a "Sexual Studies Club" to exist on campus?
A group of students, interested in sex, and the ways it can be
practiced, supported by an interested teacher.
|>
|> You want to know where your Bill of Rights went? It went straight down
|> the crapper when you started letting little exceptions get made. You
|> can prevent religion because we have to have the peephole. You can
|> outlaw gun ownership because we might resort to the wild west. You
|> can have illegal search and seizure because we have to catch drug
|> dealers. You can ignore due process because it just gets in the way
|> of catching criminals. And so on - when you don't erect a wall of
|> separation that makes government completely disinterested in religion,
|> including both disinterested in its advance or decline, you erode the
|> 1st Amendment. You are to the 1st what gun-grabbers are to the 2nd
|> and war-on-druggers-at-all-costs are to the 4th and 5th.
|>
|> It's that damned peephole that is eroding the 1st. It's the "peephole"
|> aimed at pornography that is tearing away at free press, and the
|> "peephole" aimed at political expression that is working on free speech.
|> The strength of the requirement that government make "no law respecting the
|> establishment of religion" is just as strong as the requirement that
|> government leave the free press alone. Without the peephole you've aimed
|> at religion there would no way for the government to know if I am having
|> a bible study or a chess tournament. Without the peephole others have
|> aimed at pornography, the government would have no way to know what
|> "appeals to the purient interests" even means. Without the peephole aimed
|> at political expression, flag burning would be no different from carrying
|> signs saying Bush is a fink.
Generally, I agree with you. I just want your opinion on the above
idea...
|>
|> In each of those examples, a special exception has to be made to justify
|> the action.
|> --
|> John F. Haugh II | Every 56 days. | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
|> Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | Give Blood, often. | Domain: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
|> " ... expectation is the mother of disappointment."
|> -- Brad Konopik
J. Fielek
Jerry Norris
> jo...@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> > I do. Representatives should *represent* the will of their
> > constituents, even if it conflicts with their own values.
>
> That's tough.
>
> Personally I'd rather be represented by another techy than a lawyer.
> Anyone want to argue for occupational quotas in the legislature?
Well, I've argued the case somewhere before, but I think that we _do_ have
programmers in government.
After all, we're constantly getting word of vaporware (a new tax-cut that
will, by Ghod, get the economy rolling again, a better system to keep out
the bugs in the system (crime, welfare, extra salt-pork in baked beans).
And the software that we _do_ have is under constant revision (National I
think we're at v.1.26, while state and local have been through so many
versions that I think that a complete re-write is due soon). And finally,
when anyone tries to complain, tech support is either out to lunch or
can't get in contact with any of the techy who works on _that_ particular
problem.
Not to mention that the software in question is usually over-priced, while
the hardware designed to support he software is always out of date as soon
as it comes on the market.
email address: | It's so hard to believe that a world which
xcluud!glnserv!jerryn | can make such beautiful things could be bad
Peter da Silva
> In article <RCH...@taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> |> jo...@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> |> > Football is also extra-curricular, done after hours, and is quite
> |> > voluntary.
> |> Come again? Quite voluntary?
> It is voluntary for a student to participate on the team, or to go to
> a game.
This is a rather literal-minded definition of "voluntary".
Peter da Silva
> Well, I've argued the case somewhere before, but I think that we _do_ have
> programmers in government.
> After all, we're constantly getting word of vaporware [...] the bugs in
> the system [...] under constant revision [...] tech support is out to lunch
All of which sounds more like marketroids in government than programmers. And
the difference between politics and marketing is pretty minimal.
Patrick Taylor
>In article <20...@rpp386.cactus.org> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
>>In article <14...@awdprime.UUCP> joh...@hwperform.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> They are promoting "safe sex" over "unsafe sex".
They [schools] should be promoting "no sex" as the best alternative if they
are going to talk about sex at all. Aside from moral questions, "safe sex"
isn't always safe.
>> Either schools should stay away from moral
>>issues (such as sex outside of marriage).
>
> As approached, it is a survival issue. The reason I'm against it
>is that it does imply approval, and it is unfair to you and other people
>with regard to moral systems.
>
>>Just one question - do you consider dispensing condoms and "safe sex"
>>literature to be indoctrinating a child?
>
> It's close enough. Let's ban it.
The problem many persons have with banning this information (I am _not_ one
of them) is that kids will be uninformed otherwise.
Sure, maybe you and I care enough to home-teach these subjects. But what
about the children whose parents raise kids ignorant of birth control and
"safe sex". They will learn from the wrong people, maybe.
We have to mobilize parents in the war against unwanted pregnancy and STDs.
We [parents] are the last hope. Our government has already made a mess
of this issue. The churches can't help because too many people won't
let them.
It is up to the PTAs, the casual parent groups, and "free-agent" parents
to spread the word. Educate your kids, for their sake!
{ Sorry about the soapbox }
--
-------------------- Patrick Taylor, opinions Copyright 1992 ------------------
"Anything worth doing is worth doing for God."
Frank Zappa for President? I think not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Taylor
>>
>>All I want is the same rights the chess club has. I get to stick little
>
> Ah, there's the rub. You can start a religious group. You can't
>distribute papers. You can't use the bus. If you want the choice to be
>all or nothing, you'll wind up with nothing. If you want to claim that
>the chess group must follow equal rules, then get rid of the chess group, too.
>Good for you.
>
>>You keep putting this peephole into the 1st Amendment. When asked the
>>question "Can <X> activity use the school facilities after hours", the
>>only way you can answer the question is to see if <X> is "bible study".
>>Some how this doesn't sound like you've avoided "excessive government
>>entanglement in" religion. Quite the opposite. Seems like you've
>>got government quite entangled in religion.
>
> With regard to $$, use of the bus is entanglement.
regard to legislation. It is clearly a simpler state to ignore the type
of group. See below for more about the $$ argument.
>With regard to
>the papers being distributed, you've taken the rights of the other children,
>and their parents, away.
I disagree. Each person has a right to _choice_. If there is not a notice
about the meeting, you've robbed _everyone_ of the right to choose whether
or not to crumple up the notice and throw it away.
>Allowing the groups as they do now is the least
>entangled, if you will.
I don't see it that way. Now ther are all sorts of exceptions for religion.
Exceptions are little "laws" interfering with establishment of religion.
No one is asking for the right to force anyone to go anywhere. But if, as
a state, we say we will support special club meetings financially, it
is discriminatory to say "except for religious ones". Can you imagine the
uproar if we said "except for minority ones"?
>>You want to know where your Bill of Rights went? It went straight down
>>the crapper when you started letting little exceptions get made. You
>>can prevent religion because we have to have the peephole.
>
> Not really. There are folks on the other side of the wall that
>scream about gov't funds going towards religions, religious groups. What
>you'd term removal of the peephole, they'd term removal of their rights,
>and ignorance of the 1st amendment's guarantee that gov't will not push any,
>nor all, religion.
This is muddied thinking. (No offense intended). The funds are not going to
RELIGIONS, they would be going to KIDS that want to participate in something.
That something happens to be chess or bible study, or basket weaving. What
should anyone care if the kids are doing something they _like_ to do by
choice. We're not talking about sending school $$ to Robert Tilton, we're
talking about funding a group activity for kids where bible study may or
may not be the subject. The real thing for the kids is spending time together,
anyway. And they have a choice _not_ to go, right?
Joe Mullally
>In article <1992Jan06.2...@NeoSoft.com> ro...@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>In article <20...@rpp386.cactus.org> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
>>>All I want is the same rights the chess club has. I get to stick little
>[stuff deleted]
>> With regard to $$, use of the bus is entanglement.
>"entanglement" was never meant to be taken in regard to $$. It is in
>regard to legislation. It is clearly a simpler state to ignore the type
>of group. See below for more about the $$ argument.
Gov't money cannot be used to support any religion or their
activities. From "The First Amendment Book", by Robert Wagman:
"The Supreme court gave its most comprehensive examination of the
establishment cause a landmark 1947 ruling (Everson vs. Bd. of ed.). The
case involved a constitutional challenge to a Louisiana law requiring
school districts to provide free bus transportation to all students whether
their destination was a public or parochial school. Justice Hugo Black wrote
the opinion for the majority and used the occasion to render a much broader
and more far-reaching judgement than merely whether the Louisiana busing
plan was constitutional. He used his opinion to define the reach of the
establishment clause:
'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means
at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Gov't can set up a church.
Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
one religion over another. [irrelevant part omitted] No tax in any amount,
large or small, can be levied to suupport any religious activities or
institutions*, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt
to teach or practice religion.' "
* John, am I crazy, or does this imply that my interpretation of "establishment"
at least has some credence?
>I disagree. Each person has a right to _choice_. If there is not a notice
>about the meeting, you've robbed _everyone_ of the right to choose whether
>or not to crumple up the notice and throw it away.
Actually, I think most will agree that it has often been rather
an oppressive "choice" to make. The Equal Access Ruling allows for
religious groups to meet, at school. One case in which the students lost
their right to equal access involved a group that began as a 6-member
after-school "chat" group, and evolved into a group of 100's that did
just this (distributing 1000's of flyers), and lost their right to equal
access. If need be, I'll find the source. You see, we've been down this
road before. (-:
>No one is asking for the right to force anyone to go anywhere. But if, as
>a state, we say we will support special club meetings financially, it
>is discriminatory to say "except for religious ones". Can you imagine the
>uproar if we said "except for minority ones"?
The Equal Access ruling provides that religious groups can use
school facilities.
>>>You want to know where your Bill of Rights went? It went straight down
>>>the crapper when you started letting little exceptions get made. You
>>>can prevent religion because we have to have the peephole.
>>
>> Not really. There are folks on the other side of the wall that
>>scream about gov't funds going towards religions, religious groups. What
>>you'd term removal of the peephole, they'd term removal of their rights,
>>and ignorance of the 1st amendment's guarantee that gov't will not push any,
>>nor all, religion.
>
>This is muddied thinking. (No offense intended).
None taken. Thanks. I will certainly have (and may well have, here)
muddied thinking.
> The funds are not going to
>RELIGIONS, they would be going to KIDS that want to participate in something.
>That something happens to be chess or bible study, or basket weaving. What
>should anyone care if the kids are doing something they _like_ to do by
>choice. We're not talking about sending school $$ to Robert Tilton, we're
>talking about funding a group activity for kids where bible study may or
>may not be the subject. The real thing for the kids is spending time together,
>anyway. And they have a choice _not_ to go, right?
In many instances in the past (which I feel has prompted the hard-
line stance by the gov't), choice was limited to what the religious group
allowed. Sure, you can "choose" to be athiest; just don't expect to play
on the football team, do expect punishment from religious kids (at least
teasing), etc. Tell me, is a choice that comes with such chiding strings
attached (and remember, we're talking about kids) really a choice, or will
the average kid "give in"?
Josh Fielek
IBM, or the Federal Gov't (Or state, for that matter)?
You be the judge.
Generally, though, a spot- on analysis.
J. Fielek
Chris Barnes
> I do. Representatives should *represent* the will of their
> constituents, even if it conflicts with their own values.
If that's the case, then there would be no U.S. of A. today.
The representive from the area that became Georgia voted FOR
breaking away from England against his constituants wishes.
Majorities can be (and often are) wrong, and a represenitive
is morally obligated to go against his constituants when they
are wrong.
----------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes | "The strongest reason for people to retain
| the right to keep and bear arms is, as a
x00...@tamvm1.tamu.edu | last resort, to protect themselves against
| tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
Chris Barnes
>>> Would sex w/ more than one partner be wrong, morally? Suppose
>>> there are, on an island, one male, forty females, and our race
>>> is about to expire. Should the man be morally "wrong" to
>>> fertilize all 40 women (assuming none are relatives)
>>
>
> You want to have me believe that morals are absolute,
> never-changing. Survival is the key.
>
> > and 40 females.
>
> Yet, if it didn't, morality would have to be amended.
>
The problem with your little example is in its premace,
that sex with more than 1 person is immoral. The correct
stance is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. There is
strong Biblical backing for this. Now getting back to your
story, the man would be "married" to all 40 women, so he
wouldn't be breaking that moral. And before you get to it,
I'll address your next statement "Is polygamy immoral". My
belief --> no. There are Biblical suggestions against it, but
not commandments, therefore, no, it's not immoral.
Therefore, morals do not change and take precedence over survival!
Jerry Norris
> jo...@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> > In article <RCH...@taronga.com>, pe...@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes
> > |> jo...@johniac.austin.ibm.com (John Iacoletti) writes:
> > |> > Football is also extra-curricular, done after hours, and is quite
> > |> > voluntary.
>
> > |> Come again? Quite voluntary?
>
> > It is voluntary for a student to participate on the team, or to go to
> > a game.
>
> This is a rather literal-minded definition of "voluntary".
Sorry, Pete, but I can't help but asking.
Where are students _forced_ to go to games? If you're talking about peer
pressure, well, that's something else entirely. It only _seems_ similar
to a gun ;).
John F Haugh II
>"Moral relativism" is a phrase made up by people who can't imagine a
>moral or ethical system that isn't enforced by an ultimate authority
>figure.
Nonsense. Moral relativism is "It's OK for me, because I don't have to
follow the same rules that everyone else agreed to because I'm special".
It's got nothing to do with "authority figures". Stealing isn't OK for
homeless people because of some "authority figure" nonsense you are
trying to peddle. If you want to change the rules so that theft is OK,
let me know, and I'll adjust my lifestyle accordingly.
>If only people who were driving drunk were injured in automobile accidents
>I would grant you an equivalence. Driving drunk is like engaging in unsafe
>sex while knowing yourself to be infected.
There is no authoritative test for AIDS. You cannot engage in "safe sex",
go out into the community and do anything significant, and not endanger
the rest of society. You can't sleep around, visit your dentist, and not
endanger me personally. You can't be involved in an auto accident, give
CPR, donate blood, organs, or ANYTHING where there is a probablity, no
matter how small, that bodily fluids will be exchanged, and not personally
affect me.
The way to avoid driving drunk is to designate a driver who does not
drink. The way to avoid unsafe sex is similiar - don't have sex, because
that is the only surefire way of knowing if you are infected or not. You
don't see "designated drivers" drinking 3 drinks because 3 is fewer than
4 and 4 is how many it takes to get them drunk.
>No, it isn't OK for a thug to punch *anyone* in the stomach.
But it is OK for a doctor to kill a child because the mother wants it
killed? Now THAT'S an example of moral relativism. At least you finally
got it right.
--
John F. Haugh II | Every 56 days. | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | Give Blood, often. | Domain: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
HI ! I'm a mutating signature virus. You cannot resist helping me spread !
Peter da Silva
> Where are students _forced_ to go to games? If you're talking about peer
> pressure, well, that's something else entirely.
Peer pressure backed by the implied power of the state is exactly the
argument used against certain religious observances in school. I see no
reason not to use it against what I personally consider a far worse
problem.
--
-- Peter da Silva. Taronga Park BBS. +1 713 568 0480|1032 2400/n/8/1.
-- `-_-' "Have you hugged your wolf today?"
-- 'U`
-- grep -il 'sig.*virus' $*|xargs sed -n '/^-- /,$p'|post -n alt.fan.warlord
John F Haugh II
>more. I have, however, seen you argue for illegal search and seizure
>in the name of protecting the public. I have perhaps unfairly painted
>you in my own mind as somebody who would argue against pornography and
>against legal flag-burning. I now see that this was unjustified.
If yo can find a posting where I advocate illegal search and seizure,
please, re-post it. I'd love to know who's been forging articles with
my name attached.
What I argue for is the right of business to be left alone to conduct
its own affairs (which may include drug testing, which has so far not
been shown to be "illegal search and seizure" since a business is not
the government) as well as the rights of citizens to "sting" police
who use bogus "profiles". Of course, if a "profile" works, I tend to
think it is more likely to be good investigative police work by defining
what "probable cause" for specific crimes are. If it doesn't (that is,
if a law-abiding black business man has to take special precautions to
avoid being searched without valid cause), the citizen should have the
option of filing a civil suit for violation of their civil rights.
I have never advocated outlawing flag burning or pornography. Flag
burning is protected as a political expression (so long as it conforms
to the general laws for burning things) and pornography as free press.
You may be confusing my statements that flag burning is inherently stupid
with saying it should be illegal or my statements about zoning ordinances
as being pornoshops should be outlawed.
My arguments for both legalized flag burning and hardcore pronography
are similiar to those for freedom of religion. If you let people limit
<X> behaviors (prayer and bible clubs in schools) because they are
momentarily unpopular, you risk them outlawing something else (pornographic
literature or flag burning) when it's turn comes around. Historically
speaking, burning things is a long time American tradition. Had the
politicians reminded everyone that the Revolutionaries hung and burned
King George in effigy, it would have been No Big Deal. Instead, they
overreacted and made it into a much bigger ordeal. Similiarly, by drawing
attention to pornography, the various powers that be have given it
considerable assistance. If instead of pointing at pornographic material
as some evil, they pointed at the users and described the masturbatory
fantasies of many devotees, people might laugh at porno-junkies, rather
than wanting to find out what all the fuss is about.
--
John F. Haugh II | I've Been Moved | MaBellNet: (512) 838-4340
SneakerNet: 809/1D064 | AGAIN ! | VNET: LCCB386 at AUSVMQ
BangNet: ..!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!snowball.austin.ibm.com!jfh (e-i-e-i-o)
Joe Mullally
>ro...@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) said:
>>>> Would sex w/ more than one partner be wrong, morally? Suppose
>>>> there are, on an island, one male, forty females, and our race
>>>> is about to expire. Should the man be morally "wrong" to
>>>> fertilize all 40 women (assuming none are relatives)
>>>
>>
>> No, the example demonstrates that survival takes precendence.
>> You want to have me believe that morals are absolute,
>> never-changing. Survival is the key.
>>
>> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) wri
>> > Likewise, the human population consists of more than 1 male
>> > and 40 females.
>>
>> Yet, if it didn't, morality would have to be amended.
>>
>
> The problem with your little example is in its premace,
>that sex with more than 1 person is immoral.
The biggest problem with my example is that the 2nd generation
would all be related, having the same papa.
> The correct
>stance is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. There is
>strong Biblical backing for this. Now getting back to your
>story, the man would be "married" to all 40 women, so he
>wouldn't be breaking that moral. And before you get to it,
>I'll address your next statement "Is polygamy immoral". My
>belief --> no. There are Biblical suggestions against it, but
>not commandments, therefore, no, it's not immoral.
>
>Therefore, morals do not change and take precedence over survival!
I don't want to insult, but I can't find a way to reply to this
w/o insulting. Such absurd rationalization. Do not, I repeat, do not
try this at home, ladies and gentleman- it's quite dangerous!
Jay Maynard
>You can't be involved in an auto accident, give
>CPR, donate blood, organs, or ANYTHING where there is a probablity, no
>matter how small, that bodily fluids will be exchanged, and not personally
>affect me.
[paramedic mode on]
You can give CPR safely. There's a product called the CPR Microshield that's a
barrier between you and the patient; you place it over and in the patient's
mouth, and then perform CPR normally. It contains a one-way valve that
prevents the patient's fluids getting back to you. It's a Good Thing, and
everyone who knows CPR should have one.
Please, please, please don't let fear of AIDS prevent you fron giving someone
CPR. Without CPR, the survival rate of heart attack victims drops
dramatically, even with advanced cardiac care just 4 minutes away by
ambulance. The EMS unit I belong to has an overall 38% average save rate in
full cardiac arrest cases - and there's a very high correlation between who
gets saved and how soon CPR is initiated.
[paramedic mode off]
--
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmay...@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu | adequately be explained by stupidity.
"Last time I tried to eat a Dodge Omni, it damn near ran me over!" --
Josh Fielek, when told that most people are omnivores
John Iacoletti
|> ro...@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) said:
|> > > Likewise, the human population consists of more than 1 male
|> > > and 40 females.
|> >
|> > Yet, if it didn't, morality would have to be amended.
|> >
|>
|> The problem with your little example is in its premace,
|> that sex with more than 1 person is immoral. The correct
|> stance is that sex outside of marriage is wrong. There is
|> strong Biblical backing for this.
Your premise has a problem too: Many people don't look to the
Christian Bible for moral guidance. I don't think there is anything
inherently wrong with sex outside of marriage.
John Iacoletti
|> If that's the case, then there would be no U.S. of A. today.
|> The representive from the area that became Georgia voted FOR
|> breaking away from England against his constituants wishes.
That's exactly what *should* have happened. If the people of Georgia
didn't want to join the United States, then they shouldn't have.
|> Majorities can be (and often are) wrong, and a represenitive
|> is morally obligated to go against his constituants when they
|> are wrong.
Wrong as determined by who?
Chris Winemiller
> Gov't money cannot be used to support any religion or their
> activities. From "The First Amendment Book", by Robert Wagman:
> "The Supreme court gave its most comprehensive examination of the
> establishment cause a landmark 1947 ruling (Everson vs. Bd. of ed.). The
> case involved a constitutional challenge to a Louisiana law requiring
> school districts to provide free bus transportation to all students whether
> their destination was a public or parochial school. Justice Hugo Black wrote
> the opinion for the majority and used the occasion to render a much broader
> and more far-reaching judgement than merely whether the Louisiana busing
> plan was constitutional. He used his opinion to define the reach of the
> establishment clause:
Ah! You have discovered the exact 20th century Supreme Court case in which
the Supreme Court _invented_ the "separation of church and state" myth!
Note your quotation: "..Justice Hugo Black...used the occasion to render a
much broader and more far-reaching judgement...He used his opinion to define
the reach of the establishment cause" When Black "defined the reach" of the
establishment cause, he did exactly that: came up with a new definition
which had no precedent in all prior U.S. Supreme Court case history, as well
as the case histories of all the states' Supreme Courts. And U.S. court
history prior to the existence of the U.S. Constitution as well.
> 'The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means
> at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Gov't can set up a church.
> Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer
> one religion over another. [irrelevant part omitted] No tax in any amount,
> large or small, can be levied to suupport any religious activities or
> institutions*, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt
> to teach or practice religion.' "
> * John, am I crazy, or does this imply that my interpretation of
> "establishment at least has some credence?
You're not crazy; you have simply accepted that the 1947 case above was a
legitimate instance of judicial interpretation of the law. In fact, it was
not.
One might also wonder why our great Supreme Court does not dwell on the
"prohibition" clause as much as they do on the "establishment" clause.
Remember the "prohibition" clause? "...nor prohibit the free exercise
thereof." (speaking of religion).
Chris
--
Chris Winemiller Internet: cwin...@keys.lonestar.org
UUCP : texsun!letni!keys!cwinemil
texsun!digi!keys!cwinemil
John F Haugh II
>Peer pressure backed by the implied power of the state is exactly the
>argument used against certain religious observances in school. I see no
>reason not to use it against what I personally consider a far worse
>problem.
PUH-LEEZE. Peer pressure is no reason to keep religion out of schools.
The response to peer pressure is education, not pretending it doesn't
exist or keeping it from existing. That only insures that religion will
creep back into schools, and when it does, it will be far worse than if
you'd just been reasonable about it in the first place.
--
John Iacoletti
|> Nonsense. Moral relativism is "It's OK for me, because I don't have to
|> follow the same rules that everyone else agreed to because I'm special".
|> It's got nothing to do with "authority figures". Stealing isn't OK for
|> homeless people because of some "authority figure" nonsense you are
|> trying to peddle.
This sounds more like "legal relativism" to me. Stealing is
unambiguously against the law (unless it's the government doing the
stealing. Has anyone had any computer equipment confiscated lately?).
Whether stealing is immoral or not depends on who you ask. Ask a
sample of people if they would steal if there was no chance that they
would be caught.
Let's examine the following relative moral:
Killing another human being is wrong
If you make any exceptions to this, then you are engaging in moral
relativism. Some examples of exceptions that some people make are:
It is ok to kill somebody who breaks into my house.
It is ok to kill an embryo if the mother doesn't wish to be pregnant.
It is ok for a soldier to kill an enemy soldier during wartime.
It is ok to kill a convicted murderer.
If you agree with one or more of these statements, then the moral
"Killing another human being is wrong" is a relative one for you.
Of course you could always word all of your moral values in such a way
that the exceptions become part of the moral, and then claim that they
are absolute.
Peter da Silva
> >"Moral relativism" is a phrase made up by people who can't imagine a
> >moral or ethical system that isn't enforced by an ultimate authority
> >figure.
> Nonsense. Moral relativism is "It's OK for me, because I don't have to
> follow the same rules that everyone else agreed to because I'm special".
I don't deny that there are people who think this way, but you seem (and
I'll say *seem*) to be attributing it to a whole lot of people you disagree
with who don't think that way.
> >If only people who were driving drunk were injured in automobile accidents
> >I would grant you an equivalence. Driving drunk is like engaging in unsafe
> >sex while knowing yourself to be infected.
> There is no authoritative test for AIDS.
There's an authoritative test for impaired reflexes and reaction time?
> You can't be involved in an auto accident, give
> CPR, donate blood, organs, or ANYTHING where there is a probablity, no
> matter how small, that bodily fluids will be exchanged, and not personally
> affect me.
So all these activities: CPR, donating blood, and so on should be banned?
Patrick Taylor
Werewolf.
--
End of newsgroup talk.bizarre [ynq]
------------------ Patrick Taylor, opinions Copyright 1992 --------------------
Patrick Taylor
>>...it isn't OK for a thug to punch *anyone* in the stomach.
>
>But it is OK for a doctor to kill a child because the mother wants it
>killed? Now THAT'S an example of moral relativism. At least you finally
>got it right.
>--
>John F. Haugh II | Every 56 days. | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
>Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | Give Blood, often. | Domain: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
>
Good shot, John.
>HI ! I'm a mutating signature virus. You cannot resist helping me spread !
Oh, yes I can...
Joe Mullally
>In article <20...@rpp386.cactus.org> j...@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II) writes:
>>
>>But it is OK for a doctor to kill a child because the mother wants it
>>killed? Now THAT'S an example of moral relativism. At least you finally
>>got it right.
>
From the Houston Chronicle:
(This article ran months ago, don't know exact date).
By Inga Saffron, reporting from Tirana, Albania:
"No one knows how many women died from do-it-yourself abortions before the
communists' oppressive reign came to an end last spring, but nearly
everyone had been to a funeral.
Scriptwriter Natasha Laka attended one a year ago for her typist
at the state publishing house.
The 29-year-old mother of two had lived in one of Tirana's cramped,
barracks style aprtment blocks with her husband and his parents, Laka said.
Faced with the prospect of another child, the woman turned to the only means
of birth control then available, an illegal abortion.
Until last month, an Albanian woman who wanted to end her pregnancy
could choose between hiring an illegal abortionist or doing it herself. When
she felt certain the procedure had worked- generally after about three days-
she would go to the hospital to be patched up by the doctor.
But the Tirana typist waited too long before seeking medical treatment,
said Laka, who was elected to Parliament in March in Albania's 1st free
elections.
'She was afraid if she came too early they wouldn't finish the
abortion.' Laka's friend died of a septic infection.
Intent on breeding 'soldiers for communism', Albania's authoritarian
leaders outlawed both contraception and abortion during their 46-year rule,
which came to an abrupt end in demonstrations during April and May. Albanian
doctors now admit that as many pregnancies ended in abortion as in live
births.
Only recently have people begun to acknowledge such facts. The ratio
of abortions to live births was just as high in other Eastern bloc countries,
but only in Albania and Romania were all the abortions performed clandestinely.
In one of a series of measures intended to reintroduce basic freedoms
into Albanian life, the new Parliament voted last month to make abortion legal.
In practice, however, life remains as harsh as ever for women in
Albania, a backward country in which men and women labor in grimy 20th
century factories and live in 19th century village squalor.
Even though safer abortions are now available, the cost is pro-
hibitively expensive for many women, more than a week's salary. And the
country's health system is still too broke to import contraceptives.
Under the communists, illegal abortions became almost a fact of life,
especially for urban families who were forced to double up with in-laws in
tiny apartments. Everyone questioned about the practice knew of someone who
had died after abortion. Arben Doci, a hotel employee in the northwestern town
of Kukes, had attended a funeral a middle-school classmate. Shefqet Shyti,
from the southern city of Elbasan, said his cousin just married a man who
lost his 1st wife to a botched abortion.
Even Rushman Golemi, a prominent surgeon and a member of the new
Parliament, said one of her cousins bled to death after trying to end
her pregnancy.
Most of the illegal abortions were donne by nurses in their spare time,
according to Gjioni, who treated hundreds of women scarred by amateurish
efforts. The black market abortionists often worked in unsanitary conditions
and used primitive methods that included plastic tubes and sulfur solution.
For every woman who went to Gjioni's hospital to give birth, another
went to be treated for the complications of an illegal abortion, he said.
Every year, he saw at least 6 or 7 women die from botched efforts, about one
per thousand. Others were left sterile or gave birth to handicapped children.
Gjioni, a 35-year-old obstetrician with a sad, resigned air, relayed
those facts as he sat in the hospital's dingy screening room, which contained
a cot, an examination chair and a wooden table.
Nurses rushed past with bed pans, soiled linen and trays of food. 'The
women who had abortions always came here with high fevers,' said Gjioni,
lighting a cigarette andn flicking a small cockroach off the table. 'We were
obliged to treat them. When I see them, sometimes, I would feel ashamed.
Sometimes I would feel "God bless these women". They are obliged to do this for
economic reasons, because they don't have contraception.'
END OF ARTICLE
Ah, at least Albania didn't allow this immoral act. Certainly, had
any doctor performed an abortion under these circumstances, it would not
matter what the circumstances, it would only matter what the act was: doing
an abortion. It's immoral, and none of the ignorant "moral relativists" are
going to convince otherwise, right? _Nothing_ is relative, is the only
alternative to "relativism". So, I ask you two: Moral relativism- does it
apply? Or, would the doctors have been immoral, to perform the abortions?
Think about it. Pass judgement. Let me know what your verdict is.
Chris Barnes
> Christian Bible for moral guidance. I don't think there is
> anything inherently wrong with sex outside of marriage.
>
The main topic of this discussion is too answer the
question "are there moral absolutes?". If there are moral
absolutes (as I believe), then the fact that most people
disbelieve the Bible, or the fact that you believe that sex
outside of marriage is irrelevant. All it means is that
you are wrong. That's what absolutes mean; it's a standard
by which to tell whether a person's actions are right or
wrong.
Chris Barnes
>
> Killing another human being is wrong
>
> If you make any exceptions to this, then you are engaging in
> moral relativism.
I don't believe it. I think I agree with John on this one!
In the example he chose, he's correct; but the moral is *not*
"killing another human is wrong", *murdering* another human is
wrong. Therefore, we have to decide whether the killing is
or is not murder. If it is, then it is wrong; if it isn't, then
it's not wrong.
> Some examples of exceptions that some
> people make are:
>
> It is ok to kill somebody who breaks into my house.
not murder. not morally wrong.
> It is ok to kill an embryo if the mother doesn't wish to be pregnant.
is murder. is morally wrong.
> It is ok for a soldier to kill an enemy soldier during wartime.
not murder. not morally wrong.
> It is ok to kill a convicted murderer.
not murder. not morally wrong.
See? Moral absolutes work!
----------------------------------------------
Chris Barnes | "The strongest reason for people to retain
x00...@tamvm1.tamu.edu | the right to keep and bear arms is, as a
(409) 846-3273 (home) | last resort, to protect themselves against
(409) 845-8454 (work) | tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson
Patrick Taylor
middle east. Surely we can afford some Trojans?
I think that abortion should be reserved for *health* reasons only. Note
that I include mental health.
I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for judgement on, but I would not have
done any abortions in that situation myself. As far as helping someone
who has already begun one, you cannot deny someone medical aid, whether
you think they are a murderer or not.
Joe Mullally
>> Let's examine the following relative moral:
>>
>> Killing another human being is wrong
>>
>> If you make any exceptions to this, then you are engaging in
>> moral relativism.
>
> I don't believe it. I think I agree with John on this one!
>In the example he chose, he's correct; but the moral is *not*
>"killing another human is wrong", *murdering* another human is
>wrong. Therefore, we have to decide whether the killing is
>or is not murder.
> If it is, then it is wrong; if it isn't, then
>it's not wrong.
Thou shall not kill.
>not murder. not morally wrong.
Thou shall not kill.
>not murder. not morally wrong.
Thou shall not kill.
>not murder. not morally wrong.
Thou shall not kill.
>See? Moral absolutes work!
I see. They need to be interpreted properly, is all.
Joe Mullally
>I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for judgement on, but I would not have
>done any abortions in that situation myself.
Think again. If you are 100% sure you wouldn't have aided in any
abortions there, I want to know: upon what circumstances do you think
your "decision" is based? It's based upon the fact that you live, and were
raised, as you remember. You weren't raised in Albania; you never lived under
that regime. You would not be who you are, had you been in a position to
decide.
Not that the above was part of the question. The question is: Do you
condemn, if not just feel strongly, that the abortions under those circumstances
were immoral?
Joe Mullally
>> Your premise has a problem too: Many people don't look to the
>> Christian Bible for moral guidance. I don't think there is
>> anything inherently wrong with sex outside of marriage.
>>
>
> The main topic of this discussion is too answer the
>question "are there moral absolutes?".
The thread has approached this issue, but that's not from
whence it came. I claim that moral oppressiveness, and the suppression
it creates, has more to do with causing the problems America faces today
than it can ever do to cure them. I claim that morals, at least those
in the context of our discussion, have been abused, like any tool, to the
point that we forget their cause- survival. The "usual moral" answer does
not work any more, obviously. Let's go back to the root- survival. Let's take
every kid in every school across America up on top of a 30-story building, put
a net on the street, and ask the kids to jump. Let them know that 1 time out
of 10, the net collapses before they hit, and they'll just have to accept the
collapses, and the consequences. Ask for volunteers (to jump). Inform those
that didn't want to jump that they have chosen _no sex_. Make the dangers
clear, don't make the action "wrong".
> If there are moral
>absolutes (as I believe), then the fact that most people
>disbelieve the Bible, or the fact that you believe that sex
>outside of marriage is irrelevant.
Come again?
> All it means is that
>you are wrong. That's what absolutes mean; it's a standard
>by which to tell whether a person's actions are right or
>wrong.
Whose moral absolutes are you gonna use?
Chris Barnes
>>absolutes (as I believe), then the fact that most people
>>disbelieve the Bible, or the fact that you believe that sex
>>outside of marriage is irrelevant.
>
>Come again?
Opps, I was thinking faster than I can type. What I meant to
say was "... the fact that most people disbelieve the Bible,
or the fact that you believe that sex outside of marriage is
not immoral is irrelevant."
Is that better (more understandable)?
>
>> All it means is that
>>you are wrong. That's what absolutes mean; it's a standard
>>by which to tell whether a person's actions are right or
>>wrong.
>
>Whose moral absolutes are you gonna use?
Certainly not mine. I'm simply human, and as such, was born into
this world less than perfect. What we need is to use the morals
from someone who is perfect. Hmmmm, let's see. Whose morals could
we use? Maybe Jesus' ?
Patrick Taylor
>In article <92014.344...@tamvm1.tamu.edu> X00...@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
[about moral absolutes]
> I see. They need to be interpreted properly, is all.
Everything is interpreted. Everything has a context. Whether it be the
English language, the local dialect, signs of the times, etc...
Personally I must disagree with the idea of absolutes if it means you're not
allowed to determine what the absolute means.
Are we establishing here that an absolute means what Joe thinks it means,
absolutely?
Patrick Taylor
>>I'm not sure exactly what you're asking for judgement on, but I would not have
>>done any abortions in that situation myself.
>
> Think again. If you are 100% sure you wouldn't have aided in any
>abortions there, I want to know: upon what circumstances do you think
>your "decision" is based? It's based upon the fact that you live, and were
>raised, as you remember. You weren't raised in Albania; you never lived under
>that regime. You would not be who you are, had you been in a position to
>decide.
> Not that the above was part of the question. The question is: Do you
>condemn, if not just feel strongly, that the abortions under those circumstances
>were immoral?
"Feel strongly" is a good term. Many persons have lived under great adversity
and still managed to do the right thing. Thousands of Jews were saved from
Nazi Germany by ex-patriots who were risking their *own* families.
I would not condemn them. Jesus specifically reserves this right for God.
My decision is based on the purpose God has for my life. It doesn't matter
where you are raised, God's word can reach there. The Bible is in every
nation, there are people from my church witnessing in Korea, what used to
be the USSR, and Kenya. God would have reached me with his word, because
he did the way things are today. Of course, God did not put me in Albania,
and hypotheticals are not high on my list of ways to solve problems. I
could say hypothetically we should have stepped in and helped before there
was a problem, but you know that goes nowhere.
Gary Wayne Goober Smith
--Certainly not mine. I'm simply human, and as such, was born into
--this world less than perfect. What we need is to use the morals
--from someone who is perfect. Hmmmm, let's see. Whose morals could
--we use? Maybe Jesus' ?
Maybe Mohammad?
- gary (it's all relative) smith
--
Racism Sucks!
Joe Mullally
>In article <1992Jan14.2...@NeoSoft.com> ro...@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>In article <92014.344...@tamvm1.tamu.edu> X00...@tamvm1.tamu.edu (Chris Barnes) writes:
>
>[about moral absolutes]
>
>> I see. They need to be interpreted properly, is all.
>
>Everything is interpreted. Everything has a context. Whether it be the
>English language, the local dialect, signs of the times, etc...
Are these interpretations to be considered, when one assumes to
attach moral "rights" and "wrongs" to certain acts?
>Personally I must disagree with the idea of absolutes if it means you're not
>allowed to determine what the absolute means.
(-:
>Are we establishing here that an absolute means what Joe thinks it means,
>absolutely?
(-: Touche'. What we're getting into is what I consider to be
ethics. Ethics can be used to determine how another's sense of morals,
and right and wrong conduct, compare to one's own. For example, for you,
Chris, John, and anyone else to feel it acceptable to forecast how you'd
behave in a situation such as that in Albania, is absolutely ((-:)
distasteful to me. I'm damned sure that there is someone in Albania that
has a mind similar to mine; I have no idea, however, what the stimuli
would do to such a mind. To believe otherwise, is, to me, foolish. To
claim that you believe otherwise, amid a discussion of whether or not
"moral relativism" is valid, and thereby maintaining the point of view
that morals are not "relative", but, rather, absolute, is worse. You're
lying to yourselves, at best; to me, at worst. You could no more predict
how you'd act if you lived on a planet I've designed, and won't tell you
about the design of, because in either case, you have not lived the
experience. You know the mind that was raised as it was; you do not know
_your_ mind, with different stimuli. To claim that you would be just as you
are, philosophically, under other circumstances, is an ethical breach that
I have a big problem with. That ethic is "bad", to me. I still do not
pass judgement on you, however...I have to consider that I can't understand
or know the stimuli that created your ethics. I dislike your ethic, in this
instance, but I don't consider it "wrong"- it's "wrong" for me.
Joe Mullally
>>>absolutes (as I believe), then the fact that most people
>>>disbelieve the Bible, or the fact that you believe that sex
>>>outside of marriage is irrelevant.
>>
>>Come again?
>
>Opps, I was thinking faster than I can type. What I meant to
>say was "... the fact that most people disbelieve the Bible,
>or the fact that you believe that sex outside of marriage is
>not immoral is irrelevant."
>
>Is that better (more understandable)?
Yes. Now I can disagree. (-:
>>> All it means is that
>>>you are wrong. That's what absolutes mean; it's a standard
>>>by which to tell whether a person's actions are right or
>>>wrong.
>>
>>Whose moral absolutes are you gonna use?
>
>Certainly not mine.
You're sure about this?
> I'm simply human, and as such, was born into
>this world less than perfect.
Me, too.
> What we need is to use the morals
>from someone who is perfect. Hmmmm, let's see. Whose morals could
>we use? Maybe Jesus' ?
Keep in mind that you're quoting a spoof, a lampoon, of a
particular mind-set. Yes, _maybe_ Jesus'. The Christian claim of
Jesus being the Son of God, and therefore, perfect, is not only
disbelieved, but disbelieved by people that worship his Father.
No, we can't say that every person in this world must conform to
moral absolutes which have been attributed to Jesus, upon the
writing of his words by other human beings. Furthermore, Jesus
allows you _no_ room to cast moral stones, if I'm not mistaken.
Joe Mullally
>> Not that the above was part of the question. The question is: Do you
>>condemn, if not just feel strongly, that the abortions under those circumstances
>>were immoral?
>I would not condemn them. Jesus specifically reserves this right for God.
He reserves the act of condemnation for God?
>Of course, God did not put me in Albania,
>and hypotheticals are not high on my list of ways to solve problems.
Depends on the problem. Hypotheticals are the only way to get to
the heart of this matter of moral relativism. After all, the question is
posed as such: Since you feel you can deem morally "wrong" an act which
would be morally wrong in your current environment, and that act exists
_outside of_ your current environment, I feel that my only hope to explain
my point-of-view is to place you in that other environment. This does two
things:
-Gives you a chance to consider the morality with _other than_ your
current environment.
-Gives me information as to your sense of fair play, ethically.
> I
>could say hypothetically we should have stepped in and helped before there
>was a problem, but you know that goes nowhere.
I see no relevance to the question at hand. We're talking about
how the situation _was_, not how you might have wanted it to be. As it was,
I feel that you have no means to project your raised-in-a-free-country
morals. You can't get there from here. Therefore, you can't say what you
would have done, if you're being honest with yourself. If you can't be
honest with yourself, you are likely to hurt others. That's what this
"usual moral" thread is all about. It's been made out to sound as though
I want to excuse anyone for any action. No. I'm trying to work toward an
ideological situation that can explain to Joe Mullally _why_ things happen.
Morals don't explain why, they point accusing fingers. The "moral" answer
to _why_ these things happen is that people didn't follow the morals. If
that sounds like an objective way to answer the question, I'm a Sumo
wrestler. Now, if I allow that some people are simply evil, and ignore
what they know to be right, then I've explained what occurs, in reality,
20% of the time. If I assume, instead, that people purposefully committing
immoral acts are what happens 100% of the time, then 80% of the time I'm
trying to solve a problem using the wrong assumption, and, therefore,
will not aid in my quest. The "usual moral" approach is a selfishly
motivated approach, IMHO, and I don't care for it, ethically. It's
the easy way.
Patrick Taylor
>For example, for you,
>Chris, John, and anyone else to feel it acceptable to forecast how you'd
>behave in a situation such as that in Albania, is absolutely ((-:)
>distasteful to me.
Why?
>I'm damned sure that there is someone in Albania that
>has a mind similar to mine;
Ok, but I don't see how that would affect _my_ Albanian counterpart ;-).
>I have no idea, however, what the stimuli
>would do to such a mind.
Ahh, your point is coming into focus now.
>To believe otherwise, is, to me, foolish. To
>claim that you believe otherwise, amid a discussion of whether or not
>"moral relativism" is valid, and thereby maintaining the point of view
>that morals are not "relative", but, rather, absolute, is worse.
Pardon me, but I thought I just got done saying I don't believe in
absolutes.
>You're
>lying to yourselves, at best; to me, at worst.
Shouldn't that be the other way around?
>You could no more predict
>how you'd act if you lived on a planet I've designed, and won't tell you
>about the design of, because in either case, you have not lived the
>experience.
But we're not talking about another planet. And besides, the God I
believe in is everywhere. He is my standard. Albania is irrelevant
(to *my* thinking).
>You know the mind that was raised as it was; you do not know
>_your_ mind, with different stimuli.
Don't need to. There are many reactions to things by my mind that I put
aside for Jesus's sake. My mind does not control my will. I predict you
won't really swallow this, but you'll have to accept that it is how I think.
>To claim that you would be just as you
>are, philosophically, under other circumstances, is an ethical breach that
>I have a big problem with. That ethic is "bad", to me.
Sorry.
>I still do not
>pass judgement on you, however...I have to consider that I can't understand
>or know the stimuli that created your ethics. I dislike your ethic, in this
>instance, but I don't consider it "wrong"- it's "wrong" for me.
I can live with that, and I suppose I'll have to. I can only hope that
some will understand, not all. :-)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
construction
.sig
----------------------------------------------------------------------- PTR ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Mullally
>In article <1992Jan15.2...@NeoSoft.com> ro...@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>For example, for you,
>>Chris, John, and anyone else to feel it acceptable to forecast how you'd
>>behave in a situation such as that in Albania, is absolutely ((-:)
>>distasteful to me.
>
>Why?
Because you can't know. Because attitudes like yours create
valleys of miscommunication, and communication is ultimately necessary
to reach other people. Parents that tell their kids that sex is "bad"
create a similar valley, and wonder what went wrong with the child. If
I can look at why a kid has sex, and what valid reasons _not to_ have
sex that he/she may overlook, and, if I haven't alienated the kid from
myself, I'll stand a chance of being part of that child's ultimate
success.
>>I'm damned sure that there is someone in Albania that
>>has a mind similar to mine;
>Ok, but I don't see how that would affect _my_ Albanian counterpart ;-).
(-:
>>I have no idea, however, what the stimuli
>>would do to such a mind.
>Ahh, your point is coming into focus now.
>>To believe otherwise, is, to me, foolish. To
>>claim that you believe otherwise, amid a discussion of whether or not
>>"moral relativism" is valid, and thereby maintaining the point of view
>>that morals are not "relative", but, rather, absolute, is worse.
>Pardon me, but I thought I just got done saying I don't believe in
>absolutes.
You did. Sorry for the oversight.
>>You're
>>lying to yourselves, at best; to me, at worst.
>Shouldn't that be the other way around?
If you're lying to yourself, it's not purposeful.
>>You could no more predict
>>how you'd act if you lived on a planet I've designed, and won't tell you
>>about the design of, because in either case, you have not lived the
>>experience.
>But we're not talking about another planet. And besides, the God I
>believe in is everywhere. He is my standard. Albania is irrelevant
>(to *my* thinking).
The "irrelevance" mars your ability to interpret and understand,
to my thinking. And, there are and have been _many_ humans that never
heard a word about Christ, or Jehovah. If your version of God would find you
in any situation, he'd have found them. Now, are these folks going to go
to hell because they didn't accept Christ as their personal savior? Or, would
you allow that _whatever_ God they found was the same God you worship?
>>You know the mind that was raised as it was; you do not know
>>_your_ mind, with different stimuli.
>
>Don't need to. There are many reactions to things by my mind that I put
>aside for Jesus's sake. My mind does not control my will. I predict you
>won't really swallow this, but you'll have to accept that it is how I think.
Fair enough.
>>To claim that you would be just as you
>>are, philosophically, under other circumstances, is an ethical breach that
>>I have a big problem with. That ethic is "bad", to me.
>Sorry.
>>I still do not
>>pass judgement on you, however...I have to consider that I can't understand
>>or know the stimuli that created your ethics. I dislike your ethic, in this
>>instance, but I don't consider it "wrong"- it's "wrong" for me.
>I can live with that, and I suppose I'll have to. I can only hope that
>some will understand, not all. :-)
It should be clear and obvious that we cannot help a situation
that we do not understand. Moral relativism has been tossed into this
discussion, as though it were a bad thing. Look at it as a tool. Sometimes,
this tool will allow you to see more clearly the problem, so that you can
solve it. Your words demonstrate that you do not wish to use this tool. Yet,
you can pass moral judgement. If I encounter a molecular scientist that refuses
to use a microscope, I'd be suspicious of his "findings".
Patrick Taylor
>In article <1992Jan15....@exu.ericsson.se> exu...@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>I would not condemn them. Jesus specifically reserves this right for God.
>
> He reserves the act of condemnation for God?
Condemnation, Judgement, whatever you want to call it. God is the one
who says who is right and who is wrong in the end.
>>Of course, God did not put me in Albania,
>>and hypotheticals are not high on my list of ways to solve problems.
>
> Depends on the problem. Hypotheticals are the only way to get to
>the heart of this matter of moral relativism. After all, the question is
>posed as such: Since you feel you can deem morally "wrong" an act which
>would be morally wrong in your current environment, and that act exists
>_outside of_ your current environment, I feel that my only hope to explain
>my point-of-view is to place you in that other environment.
If that is your only hope, then you have no hope ;-)
>This does two
>things:
>-Gives you a chance to consider the morality with _other than_ your
> current environment.
This assumes moral relativism, doesn't it. Circular?
>-Gives me information as to your sense of fair play, ethically.
I can't fairly imagine what it is _really_ like. That's honest.
>> I
>>could say hypothetically we should have stepped in and helped before there
>>was a problem, but you know that goes nowhere.
>
> I see no relevance to the question at hand.
True, I was just engaging in another hypothetical.
>We're talking about
>how the situation _was_, not how you might have wanted it to be.
But as long as we're being hypothetical, anything is fair to hypothesize
about. You're saying that you can hypothesize about where I was, but I
cannot hypothesize about what happened before.
>As it was,
>I feel that you have no means to project your raised-in-a-free-country
>morals. You can't get there from here. Therefore, you can't say what you
>would have done, if you're being honest with yourself. If you can't be
>honest with yourself, you are likely to hurt others. That's what this
>"usual moral" thread is all about. It's been made out to sound as though
>I want to excuse anyone for any action. No. I'm trying to work toward an
>ideological situation that can explain to Joe Mullally _why_ things happen.
I sincerely wish you luck. Man has been on this trail since the dawn of time.
Which means you are in good company :-)
>Morals don't explain why, they point accusing fingers. The "moral" answer
>to _why_ these things happen is that people didn't follow the morals. u
If you mean that you are trying to explain everyone's actions with facts,
I think maybe it's possible, but what is the point. Freddy K. killed
14 women because he was abused by his mother. But look, you still have
the basic immorality, he was abused. Immorality breeds immorality. Morality
does not. This is one way to define what they are.
>Now, if I allow that some people are simply evil, and ignore
>what they know to be right, then I've explained what occurs, in reality,
>20% of the time.
Where does this number come from?
>If I assume, instead, that people purposefully committing
>immoral acts are what happens 100% of the time, then 80% of the time I'm
>trying to solve a problem using the wrong assumption, and, therefore,
>will not aid in my quest. The "usual moral" approach is a selfishly
>motivated approach, IMHO, and I don't care for it, ethically. It's
>the easy way.
No one can "make" anyone commit an immoral act. With a knife at my throat
I would not harm any other person. Sometimes, though, a situation can be
_extremely_ difficult, and a person giving way under these circumstances,
IMHO, is more "forgivable", if you will, than the person who does it for
fun.
I see this not as moral relativism (it is still just as wrong), but as
understanding and compassion. Justice tempered with mercy. This is
what the bible preaches. It is what Jesus taught. COuld this be close
to what you are talking about?
Patrick Taylor
>Furthermore, Jesus
>allows you _no_ room to cast moral stones, if I'm not mistaken.
Are you sure you know what this means?
He said "If I do not condemn her, then how can you?" What he meant was that
if we are to police ourselves, we must show mercy and not give justice
with a vengeance.
If it is commonplace to speed on the highway, then how can I fine you 2,000
for speeding. The justice must be mild, because I must remember that the
same punishment can be leveled against me.
It does not mean allow people to break any moral they wish.
Patrick Taylor
>>But we're not talking about another planet. And besides, the God I
>>believe in is everywhere. He is my standard. Albania is irrelevant
>>(to *my* thinking).
>
> The "irrelevance" mars your ability to interpret and understand,
>to my thinking.
My thinking is not your thinking.
>And, there are and have been _many_ humans that never
>heard a word about Christ, or Jehovah. If your version of God would find you
>in any situation, he'd have found them.
No. That's like saying you should be Christian because I am. I'm not arguing
that there is a _possibility_ that God would find me. He doesn't have to
look. He doesn't *need* a bible. He doesn't choose everybody. Some of
us have to do the rest.
>Now, are these folks going to go
>to hell because they didn't accept Christ as their personal savior? Or, would
>you allow that _whatever_ God they found was the same God you worship?
I honestly don't know. God does.
>>I can live with that, and I suppose I'll have to. I can only hope that
>>some will understand, not all. :-)
>
> It should be clear and obvious that we cannot help a situation
>that we do not understand. Moral relativism has been tossed into this
>discussion, as though it were a bad thing. Look at it as a tool. Sometimes,
>this tool will allow you to see more clearly the problem, so that you can
>solve it. Your words demonstrate that you do not wish to use this tool. Yet,
>you can pass moral judgement. If I encounter a molecular scientist that refuses
>to use a microscope, I'd be suspicious of his "findings".
Please note that my judgement is based on a tool that I consider to be
superior. This kind of thing has happened in science, too.
Joe Mullally
>In article <1992Jan16....@NeoSoft.com> ro...@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>Furthermore, Jesus
>>allows you _no_ room to cast moral stones, if I'm not mistaken.
>
>Are you sure you know what this means?
Yes, I know what it means to me, as well as "Let he who is w/o
sin cast the first stone."
>He said "If I do not condemn her, then how can you?" What he meant was that
>if we are to police ourselves, we must show mercy and not give justice
>with a vengeance.
And that it definitely not what it means to me. It means mind your
own morals. Outside of that, try to help those that need help achieving
a moral system of their own, that will help them in life, but do not presume
that you can judge another's actions. As we've been establishing, God
has that job. In my mind, God practices "moral relativism". His job is not
to condemn, it is to try _not_ to condemn. To my mind, Jesus' words are
corrupted by misinterpretations. Society establishes laws to achieve ends.
In America, those "ends" are individual rights, individual protection,
and freedom to succeed, _not_ Christian morality. If we become confused
about this to the point that we believe Christian morality is the "end" we
seek, we will have reached the "end" of the American experiment, and have
begun a new experiment. It's innovative to claim that such a new experiment
was original intent.
>If it is commonplace to speed on the highway, then how can I fine you 2,000
>for speeding. The justice must be mild, because I must remember that the
>same punishment can be leveled against me.
In the case of laws, you do not arrest, nor judge, someone, without
prior establishment of the law. With morals, Jesus tells you to mind your
own business, and that's plenty to contend with. Morals are not laws; morality
is judged on an individual basis, prior establishment is of _desirable_
morality. You do not get to judge. God does. God tells you not to judge.
>It does not mean allow people to break any moral they wish.
Jesus understood that Patrick Humphrey could only benefit selfishly
from trying to police others' morality, and so he said: DON'T ASSUME YOU
CAN JUDGE. Leave it be. Those that need be judged "immoral" will get theirs.
You can benefit society by understanding, not by passing judgement.
Joe Mullally
>>In article <1992Jan15....@exu.ericsson.se> exu...@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>I feel that my only hope to explain
>>my point-of-view is to place you in that other environment.
>
>If that is your only hope, then you have no hope ;-)
I know. (-:
>>This does two
>>things:
>>-Gives you a chance to consider the morality with _other than_ your
>> current environment.
>
>This assumes moral relativism, doesn't it. Circular?
It asks you to abandon your current set of beliefs, and live inside
of another set, for a moment, in order to attempt to understand what the
choices in life look life from within other systems.
>>-Gives me information as to your sense of fair play, ethically.
>I can't fairly imagine what it is _really_ like. That's honest.
Thank you. I appreciate that. Neither can I , so who am I to
judge?
>But as long as we're being hypothetical, anything is fair to hypothesize
>about. You're saying that you can hypothesize about where I was, but I
>cannot hypothesize about what happened before.
Insomuch as it (your modification) changes my hypothetical in a
way that invalidates it's point, this is correct. You're saying that you
don't care to understand my point?
>If you mean that you are trying to explain everyone's actions with facts,
>I think maybe it's possible, but what is the point. Freddy K. killed
>14 women because he was abused by his mother. But look, you still have
>the basic immorality, he was abused. Immorality breeds immorality. Morality
>does not. This is one way to define what they are.
People are shot out of cannons into adulthood. They cannot
change the cannon, nor it's initial aim, but they can change direction.Slowly.
Morality blames the person as though he/she chose the initial direction.
What you describe above is what I call a relay race. Each generation's
goal must be to drop the baton, but we do not look at each other, and
say "He's bad 'cause he's carrying that baton". In my view, we should
ask ourselves how we can help him/her put that baton down. We aren't going
to do so by alienating the person with our superior morality.
>>Now, if I allow that some people are simply evil, and ignore
>>what they know to be right, then I've explained what occurs, in reality,
>>20% of the time.
>
>Where does this number come from?
It's made up. Why?
>I would not harm any other person. Sometimes, though, a situation can be
>_extremely_ difficult, and a person giving way under these circumstances,
>IMHO, is more "forgivable", if you will, than the person who does it for
>fun.
A person that does it for fun does fit into your "wrong" format.
>I see this not as moral relativism (it is still just as wrong), but as
>understanding and compassion. Justice tempered with mercy. This is
>what the bible preaches. It is what Jesus taught. COuld this be close
>to what you are talking about?
Yes. Very close. I still don't feel that I'm being compassionate
for compassion's sake, though.
John F Haugh II
>In article <1992Jan16.2...@exu.ericsson.se> exu...@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>Are you sure you know what this means?
>
> Yes, I know what it means to me, as well as "Let he who is w/o
>sin cast the first stone."
After reading a few of your other articles, I'm convinced you DON'T know
what it means. It doesn't mean "Mind your own damned business" - it means
exactly what it says - don't condemn other people. You are doing no one a
service by permitting them to screw around at will, pretending you can't
say anything. Christ did not say "Leave her be and let her do what she
wants", she told the woman to "Sin no more".
There is a difference between moral guidance and condemnation. It is
possible to say "Don't have sex until marriage" and not simulatenously
say "You are going to Hell if you don't listen to me". John 8:11 does
not say "You do your thing, and I'll ignore you", Christ states "go and
sin no more". Christ did not condemn the woman, rather he judged her
act as sinful and told her not to do it anymore.
>>He said "If I do not condemn her, then how can you?" What he meant was that
>>if we are to police ourselves, we must show mercy and not give justice
>>with a vengeance.
>
> And that it definitely not what it means to me. It means mind your
>own morals.
No, it means exactly what Patrick says, and more. How can you judge the
act of a prostitute if the person visiting the prostitute is also
guilty of breaking the law? Had Christ said "Let those of you WITH
sin stone yourselves first", it would have been a completely different
scene. Instead of the men walking away with their heads hung low, we
would have seen a group of men making some excuse for their actions.
These men weren't applying the law as written (if they had been, they
would have been stoned themselves a long time before), they were using a
set of moral relatives "Hey, we have the power, we can ignore the law".
>>It does not mean allow people to break any moral they wish.
>
> Jesus understood that Patrick Humphrey could only benefit selfishly
>from trying to police others' morality, and so he said: DON'T ASSUME YOU
>CAN JUDGE. Leave it be. Those that need be judged "immoral" will get theirs.
Hah! Patrick Humphrey will not benefit selfishly from providing moral
guidance. Telling people to not sleep around doesn't benefit him or me.
The 200,000 people in this country with AIDS would certainly have
benefitted more than Patrick or I had they listened. We know certain
things are wrong - drinking and driving - but POPULIST pressure makes
other actions - sleeping around - untouchable political topics.
>You can benefit society by understanding, not by passing judgement.
You can "understand" AIDS all you want, but until you take action, all the
"understanding" in the world is going to get your NOWHERES. Likewise with
hunger and illiteracy - if you don't instill values ("morals") into the
people suffering from these problems, the problem will not go away. Merely
being compassionate and understanding never fed anyone for more than a day.
--
John F. Haugh II | Every 56 days. | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 255-8251 | Give Blood, often. | Domain: j...@rpp386.cactus.org
HI ! I'm a mutating signature virus. You cannot resist helping me spread !
Chris Barnes
>>Now, are these folks going to go to hell because they didn't
>>accept Christ as their personal savior? Or, would you allow that
>>_whatever_ God they found was the same God you worship?
>
>I honestly don't know. God does.
Well I do. "I am the way, the truth and the light. No man
comes to the father but by me." That seems pretty clear to me.
---- Chris Barnes
Joe Mullally
>>In article <1992Jan16.2...@exu.ericsson.se> exu...@exu.ericsson.se (Patrick Taylor) writes:
>>>Are you sure you know what this means?
>>
>> Yes, I know what it means to me, as well as "Let he who is w/o
>>sin cast the first stone."
>
>After reading a few of your other articles, I'm convinced you DON'T know
>what it means.
You may well be right, but you're not talking about what I wrote,
which was that I know what it means TO ME.
> It doesn't mean "Mind your own damned business" - it means
>exactly what it says - don't condemn other people. You are doing no one a
>service by permitting them to screw around at will, pretending you can't
>say anything.
I want to stop the activities' occurence as much as anyone. It is
the activity(ies) with which I am concerned, and not governing any
individual. This was, to me, the intent of Jesus' guidance. Society is a
game of Chutes and Ladders, to me, and I want to make Ladders more available,
not criticize those that have slipped down Chutes. Noone in such a game is
going to help anyone by pointing out their slipups, and that their slipups
make them inferior to those that haven't slipped up.
>There is a difference between moral guidance and condemnation. It is
>possible to say "Don't have sex until marriage" and not simulatenously
>say "You are going to Hell if you don't listen to me".
And this is _not_ "usual moral" commentary, either."Usual moral"
does say "You are going to hell....".
>> And that it definitely not what it means to me. It means mind your
>>own morals.
>
>No, it means exactly what Patrick says, and more.
You have enough to contend with in life, just minding your own
morals.
> How can you judge the
>act of a prostitute if the person visiting the prostitute is also
>guilty of breaking the law? Had Christ said "Let those of you WITH
>sin stone yourselves first", it would have been a completely different
>scene.
Wow. The point, to me, is clear: Mere humans cannot point their
fingers, period. Deal with your life, on your terms, and let God decide
who has been immoral, and not. You do realize that despite Jesus' words, you
continue to judge as "wrong" even the acts and character of alcoholics, for
example.
>>>It does not mean allow people to break any moral they wish.
>>
>> Jesus understood that Patrick Humphrey could only benefit selfishly
>>from trying to police others' morality, and so he said: DON'T ASSUME YOU
>>CAN JUDGE. Leave it be. Those that need be judged "immoral" will get theirs.
>
>Hah! Patrick Humphrey will not benefit selfishly from providing moral
>guidance. Telling people to not sleep around doesn't benefit him or me.
If your purpose is to police your own morality, there is one
obvious reason to police others' morality- a purpose that I can see as
self-serving, which is to discontinue to police oneself, or at least a
desire to look at someone else's morality with the concern than ought to
be spent on oneself. It, to me, is not what Jesus asks of you, so it
does not serve Him.
>We know certain
>things are wrong - drinking and driving - but POPULIST pressure makes
>other actions - sleeping around - untouchable political topics.
Maybe we should define that as "usual populist". (-:
>
>>You can benefit society by understanding, not by passing judgement.
>
>You can "understand" AIDS all you want, but until you take action, all the
>"understanding" in the world is going to get your NOWHERES.
This is idiotic, John. You place the taking of action BEFORE the
understanding of the problem which is being acted upon?
>Merely
>being compassionate and understanding never fed anyone for more than a day.
Agreed. Compassion has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
If this is a leak under my sink, I still want to understand why it's
leaking, not just to call it a bad sink.
BTW, welcome back from wherever.
John F Haugh II
> You may well be right, but you're not talking about what I wrote,
>which was that I know what it means TO ME.
You may read "Mary had a little lamb" and take it to mean she had sex with
the furry critter. Were you to say "To ME, that statement means she had sex
with the animal", I would likewise reply "You don't know what the statement
means".
>> It doesn't mean "Mind your own damned business" - it means
>>exactly what it says - don't condemn other people. You are doing no one a
>>service by permitting them to screw around at will, pretending you can't
>>say anything.
>
> I want to stop the activities' occurence as much as anyone. It is
>the activity(ies) with which I am concerned, and not governing any
>individual. This was, to me, the intent of Jesus' guidance. Society is a
>game of Chutes and Ladders, to me, and I want to make Ladders more available,
>not criticize those that have slipped down Chutes. Noone in such a game is
>going to help anyone by pointing out their slipups, and that their slipups
>make them inferior to those that haven't slipped up.
I certainly agree that we have no business running other peoples lives, but
just as a parent tells their child "Don't touch the hot stove, you'll get
burned", we have a moral obligation as our brother's keeper to tell others
"Don't have sex with strangers, you'll get a fatal disease."
If a man falls into a ditch, would you help him out, or would you leave him
there, figuring he must want to be in that ditch? It is quite possible that
he tossed himself into the ditch to have a good time rolling in the mud. But
it is more likely that he fell in by accident. The Good Samaratan did not
say "Hey, that guy must be into S&M - yeh, that would explain all those cuts
and bruises."
> And this is _not_ "usual moral" commentary, either."Usual moral"
>does say "You are going to hell....".
You've been to too many Baptist churches in your life. In John 3:17,
Christ says he did not come to condemn, but to save. People who condemn
others are not practicing the same religion as what Christ taught.
> You have enough to contend with in life, just minding your own
>morals.
Sorry, we are social creatures - God created us for each others company.
Go read Genesis if you don't buy that line. We =are= our brothers'
keepers, and our sisters', and mothers' and everyone elses. Go read
Genesis 4:9 and Genesis 2, starting about verse 18. We were made both
for each other and for God.
> Wow. The point, to me, is clear: Mere humans cannot point their
>fingers, period. Deal with your life, on your terms, and let God decide
>who has been immoral, and not. You do realize that despite Jesus' words, you
>continue to judge as "wrong" even the acts and character of alcoholics, for
>example.
WRONG. I judge acts, not people. Drinking to excess is wrong, but
I still care about alcoholics. You would do well to notice that even
though a gay man has a 30 times higher chance of contracting AIDS than
a straight man, I do NOT say "gay men are evil because they spread
AIDS and death", but rather "don't sleep around". You'd much rather
say "If you want to spread AIDS, that's your business." God says that
I =am= my brother's keeper.
> If your purpose is to police your own morality, there is one
>obvious reason to police others' morality- a purpose that I can see as
>self-serving, which is to discontinue to police oneself, or at least a
>desire to look at someone else's morality with the concern than ought to
>be spent on oneself. It, to me, is not what Jesus asks of you, so it
>does not serve Him.
Protecting others from their actions is a commandment of God. We are
commanded to take care of each other (feed the hungry, tend for the sick,
and all the stuff about widows and orphans). Ministering to each others
spirit - providing moral guidance and direction - is as important as
feeding homeless people.
>>You can "understand" AIDS all you want, but until you take action, all the
>>"understanding" in the world is going to get your NOWHERES.
>
> This is idiotic, John. You place the taking of action BEFORE the
>understanding of the problem which is being acted upon?
Huh? How is one person's transmission of AIDS any different than anothers?
You would have us all sit around trying to figure out root causes before
taking any action whatsoever. And I can tell you from years of dealing with
people that different people do things for completely different reasons.
>>Merely
>>being compassionate and understanding never fed anyone for more than a day.
>
> Agreed. Compassion has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
>If this is a leak under my sink, I still want to understand why it's
>leaking, not just to call it a bad sink.
Certainly. And if you found your child jamming an ice pick at the pipes
the day before, you might have a clue. If you know jamming an ice pick into
the plumbing under the sink causes leaks, it doesn't take this great leap
of logic to figure that if you want to stop leaks, stop the kid from playing
with that ice pick. But if you spend your time regressing that 3 year old
through his short life to find out why he picked up that little habit, you
could be there all day long - and STILL have a leaky sink.
Sometime around the 5th or 6th grade I learned that the area of a circle
is PI R ** 2. When I was in college I learned how to derive that from the
integral equation for the area inside a circle. There are some things you
have to just DO.
Telling people that sleeping around is wrong does not require us to first
find out that they feel unloved because as a 3 year old their mother left
them at dayschool and they've been trying to feel wanted for the last 26
years. You would do much better if you explained why sleeping around is
wrong, and let THEM figure out why they do it. If you look at how teachers
work, you'll notice that they teach all 25 students at the same time. I
don't recall once having a teacher start at the first desk and make
certain the first child understood the lesson before moving on to the
next desk.
Gary Wayne Goober Smith
-- Well I do. "I am the way, the truth and the light. No man
--comes to the father but by me." That seems pretty clear to me.
And he wasn't just sprouting nonsense. Around 400 years after this, however,
another messenger and path arrived to the same 'father'. And then in
1964, yet another messenger and path arrived. Thus the three major
branches of pre-Spockian followers: Christians, Muslims, and Goobers.
These three followers prospered into the 23 century until The Great
Investigation (headed by Allah Spock) turned up evidence that all three
branches were actually fronts for massive 2,500 year old twinkee smugling
conglomerates.
Soon after the investigation, the Spockian religion swept the galaxy.
Some say that perhaps The Great Investigation was tainted by Spock's desire
for attention and followers. Spockians, however, did not care.
However, around 50 years after the massive Spockian religion conquered the
hearts of humans throughout the Galaxy, the infamous SpockGate Tapes were
released. The Galaxy was stuned and chaos set in.
This, as we all know, was where our Great Leader, El Weseley, came and
saved our souls, thus restoring our galaxy to it's greatness.
- gary (in el weseley's name) smith
--
Racism Sucks!
Joe Mullally
>> You may well be right, but you're not talking about what I wrote,
>>which was that I know what it means TO ME.
>
>You may read "Mary had a little lamb" and take it to mean she had sex with
>the furry critter. Were you to say "To ME, that statement means she had sex
>with the animal", I would likewise reply "You don't know what the statement
>means".
Great reply.
>I certainly agree that we have no business running other peoples lives, but
>just as a parent tells their child "Don't touch the hot stove, you'll get
>burned", we have a moral obligation as our brother's keeper to tell others
>"Don't have sex with strangers, you'll get a fatal disease."
One _may_ get a fatal disease. This is survivalistic, not moral, advice.
What I'm against is to then label someone that doesn't get the message as
"bad".
>If a man falls into a ditch, would you help him out, or would you leave him
>there, figuring he must want to be in that ditch? It is quite possible that
>he tossed himself into the ditch to have a good time rolling in the mud. But
>it is more likely that he fell in by accident. The Good Samaratan did not
>say "Hey, that guy must be into S&M - yeh, that would explain all those cuts
>and bruises."
Good analogy. Good point.
>> And this is _not_ "usual moral" commentary, either."Usual moral"
>>does say "You are going to hell....".
>
>You've been to too many Baptist churches in your life.
True. (-:
> In John 3:17,
>Christ says he did not come to condemn, but to save. People who condemn
>others are not practicing the same religion as what Christ taught.
Bravo!
>> Wow. The point, to me, is clear: Mere humans cannot point their
>>fingers, period. Deal with your life, on your terms, and let God decide
>>who has been immoral, and not. You do realize that despite Jesus' words, you
>>continue to judge as "wrong" even the acts and character of alcoholics, for
>>example.
>
>WRONG. I judge acts, not people. Drinking to excess is wrong, but
>I still care about alcoholics.
You have told me in the past that drug addicts _choose_ to become
such, and had as much opportunity as you or I do to choose otherwise.
> You'd much rather
>say "If you want to spread AIDS, that's your business."
That's what I said, all-righty!
>> If your purpose is to police your own morality, there is one
>>obvious reason to police others' morality- a purpose that I can see as
>>self-serving, which is to discontinue to police oneself, or at least a
>>desire to look at someone else's morality with the concern than ought to
>>be spent on oneself. It, to me, is not what Jesus asks of you, so it
>>does not serve Him.
>
>Ministering to each others
>spirit - providing moral guidance and direction - is as important as
>feeding homeless people.
Are you ministering to my spirit when you take my aversion to
place blame upon individuals in certain circumstances, and claim that
such a standpoint equates to "If you want to spread AIDS, that's your
business"? Or, is it a matter of self-servance to you, to claim one thing,
yet practice another?
>>>You can "understand" AIDS all you want, but until you take action, all the
>>>"understanding" in the world is going to get your NOWHERES.
>>
>> This is idiotic, John. You place the taking of action BEFORE the
>>understanding of the problem which is being acted upon?
>
>Huh? How is one person's transmission of AIDS any different than anothers?
Quite easy- needles, homo-sex, hetero-sex, and birth.
>You would have us all sit around trying to figure out root causes before
>taking any action whatsoever.
Not if the current action is working. If it's not, then I'll seek
other possibilities. I just posted two articles that seem to have found
a new way to help these kids. Should we have not gone looking for that
answer? That answer, BTW, was that moralizing alone doesn't work in this case.
>> Agreed. Compassion has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
>>If this is a leak under my sink, I still want to understand why it's
>>leaking, not just to call it a bad sink.
>
>Certainly. And if you found your child jamming an ice pick at the pipes
>the day before, you might have a clue. If you know jamming an ice pick into
>the plumbing under the sink causes leaks, it doesn't take this great leap
>of logic to figure that if you want to stop leaks, stop the kid from playing
>with that ice pick. But if you spend your time regressing that 3 year old
>through his short life to find out why he picked up that little habit, you
>could be there all day long - and STILL have a leaky sink.
And when the sink begins to leak again, you'd give the kid some
punishment, and define him/her as "bad". Heck, why try to understand the
problem? Well, this time, it was because the pipe has rusted. Poor child.
But, hey, we don't have time to try to understand.
>Sometime around the 5th or 6th grade I learned that the area of a circle
>is PI R ** 2. When I was in college I learned how to derive that from the
>integral equation for the area inside a circle. There are some things you
>have to just DO.
Spank away! Use less knowledge than necessary. There are some things
that you just have to do.
>Telling people that sleeping around is wrong does not require us to first
>find out that they feel unloved because as a 3 year old their mother left
>them at dayschool and they've been trying to feel wanted for the last 26
>years.
Agreed, but expecting a result does. Exactly what I'm talking
about. I want results. I can't get them if I scratch my head and say
"The usual moral answers have been foresaken, and that's why everything's
gotten to the point it has."
> You would do much better if you explained why sleeping around is
>wrong, and let THEM figure out why they do it. If you look at how teachers
>work, you'll notice that they teach all 25 students at the same time. I
>don't recall once having a teacher start at the first desk and make
>certain the first child understood the lesson before moving on to the
>next desk.
Yet the teacher must try to use a method that will generate the best
results, not keep trying the same method, if it has failed.
Patrick Taylor
>>He said "If I do not condemn her, then how can you?" What he meant was that
>>if we are to police ourselves, we must show mercy and not give justice
>>with a vengeance.
>
> And that it definitely not what it means to me. It means mind your
>own morals.
It means do not expect someone else to be more moral than yourself.
It means you cannot "judge" someone to be good or bad, but you certainly
can enforce a law that protects another's life. Nothing would be served
by the stoning of the woman, so do not judge her just for judging's sake.
But if a man kills or steals habitually, you know what you can expect from
him and you have to deal with him accordingly.
>Outside of that, try to help those that need help achieving
>a moral system of their own, that will help them in life, but do not presume
>that you can judge another's actions. As we've been establishing, God
>has that job. In my mind, God practices "moral relativism".
I am quite certain God does not practise anything in your mind. He is
not bounded by us.
>His job is not
>to condemn, it is to try _not_ to condemn. To my mind, Jesus' words are
>corrupted by misinterpretations. Society establishes laws to achieve ends.
>In America, those "ends" are individual rights, individual protection,
>and freedom to succeed, _not_ Christian morality.
Where do you think the "certain inalienable rights:" came from? Why
are the inalienable?
>If we become confused
I'm not confused, are you confused?
>about this to the point that we believe Christian morality is the "end" we
>seek, we will have reached the "end" of the American experiment, and have
>begun a new experiment. It's innovative to claim that such a new experiment
>was original intent.
Ok. But where did this "original intent" stuff come from anyway. Maybe
we should close UPS because of the "original intent?"
>>If it is commonplace to speed on the highway, then how can I fine you 2,000
>>for speeding. The justice must be mild, because I must remember that the
>>same punishment can be leveled against me.
>
> In the case of laws, you do not arrest, nor judge, someone, without
>prior establishment of the law. With morals, Jesus tells you to mind your
>own business, and that's plenty to contend with. Morals are not laws; morality
>is judged on an individual basis, prior establishment is of _desirable_
>morality. You do not get to judge. God does. God tells you not to judge.
<ON SOAPBOX>
You are confusing morals, law and Justice, and I'll throw in discernment
for good measure. If I say so-and-so did x and x is wrong, I am not judging
so-and-so. Jesus does _NOT_ tell you to "mind your own business" ANYWHERE
IN THE TEXT OF THE NT AND I CHALLENGE YOU TO PRODUCE THIS. And you can
forget the plank-speck business, because he's only speaking about order
here, he never forbids removing the brother's speck.
God Judges who has been "good" and who has not. I can and must "judge"
by Jesus's teachings which _actions_ are good and not. This is all
over the NT. If you cannot select an action as wrong, then how can
you concentrate even on your own morals? God or Jesus never said,
hinted, suggested, implied, etc... that anyone goes by a different set
of rules. Period.
<OFF SOAPBOX>
>
>>It does not mean allow people to break any moral they wish.
>
> Jesus understood that Patrick Humphrey could only benefit selfishly
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
relevance?
>from trying to police others' morality, and so he said: DON'T ASSUME YOU
>CAN JUDGE. Leave it be. Those that need be judged "immoral" will get theirs.
>You can benefit society by understanding, not by passing judgement.
Read more Jesus, preach less. Then you can understand, too.