Once again I am left virtually speechless but the sheer blind rage in this election. The moral leaders of the Church in the Valley in Leakey, Texas felt that it was appropriate to post this sign reading: “Vote for the Mormon, not the Muslim! The capitalist, not the communist!” Putting aside the violation of its tax-exempt status, church leaders thought nothing of the lesson given their children in making such false and prejudicial statements. It shows the dangerously thin line that separates the faithful from the hateful in our society.
Of course, in addition to repeating the false statement about President Obama’s religion, the sign adds the common and equally ridiculous mantra about his being a communist. A term that, when pressed, seems beyond definition for some of these protesters.
The Church in the Valley headed by Pastor Ray Miller (who came up with the idea of the sign) sees nothing wrong is defining people primarily by their alleged faith — whether it is falsely Obama as a Muslim or Romney as a Mormon.
Equally disgusting is the response of a least one local businessman who insist that the controversy will be good for business. Damon White is quoted as saying “I love it. Even if it’s bad attention, bring it on. Come to town, see what it’s about.” Well, Mr. White, we certainly now know what you are about. It does not matter if it is unfair, prejudicial, and disrespectful, it is good for business. Now there is a lesson for the children of Leakey, Texas.
Notably, on its website, the Church proclaims “We believe our faith should be visible in concrete forms and models of personal and social behavior.” That model appears to include insulting and prejudicial statements about people with whom you disagree as well as use of false claims to achieve your political ends. I don’t recall the passage where Jesus Christ led the smear campaign against Pontius Pilatus. Indeed, I seem to recall something out “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Perhaps but it does not sum up Paster Miller or the good people of the Church of the Valley.
Source: KENS as first seen on Reddit.
gbk – “Enoch, I won’t mention the gun, but I will mention your platitudes to Ayn through your comments at: [etc.]”.
I have no idea what you’re talking about, re. a gun, but I do want to make clear that I was not defending Rand. Rather, in something of the role of a school teacher, I was critiquing Gerson’s account of Rand, and explaining to him what she really (I believe, at least) meant.
I find I can learn something from just about anyone, whether Marx, Rand or even Gene. That I have learned something from any or all of these does not entail that I agree with any or all of these.
enoch,
“I believe it is fair to say that the functional definition of murder is “unjustified/unjustifiable homicide,” and that your observation goes to the changing terms of justifiability.”
Sorry, but I don’ have the same decoder ring. Try again.
gbk – It isn’t for me to put words in your mouth (so to speak). It seems, though, that you’re making a good observation less well than you could.
Statutory language aside, I believe it is fair to say that the functional definition of murder is “unjustified/unjustifiable homicide,” and that your observation goes to the changing terms of justifiability.
Enoch,
I won’t mention the gun, but I will mention your platitudes to Ayn through your comments at:
http://robbingamerica.blogspot.com/2011/04/who-is-afraid-of-ayn-rand.html
Mr. Gerson, of the Washington Post, in criticizing the movie “Atlas Shrugged”, pretends to criticize the book and the philosophy behind it. It is a stretch in which he fails predictably. As one might have expected, there is a chasm between the movie and the complex development of a philosophical structure that was the final purpose of the book. Mr. Gerson comes to pieces in trying to launch a critique from the initial platform of a movie – we all know that Hollywood can never convey historical truth of esoteric ideas. But he sinks further – and this is his real sin – when attempting to bridge his initial movie review to an explanation of why Objectivism – the philosophical name of Rand’s individualistic philosophy – is what he calls “adult-onset adolescence” (whatever that means).
Mr. Gerson goes on unaware of his limitations to precisely assert those limitations by concluding that “Rand developed..[her].. philosophy at the length of Tolstoy, with the intellectual pretensions of Hegel, but it can be summarized on a napkin. Reason is everything. Religion is a fraud. Selfishness is a virtue. Altruism is a crime against human excellence. Self-sacrifice is weakness. Weakness is contemptible.” He uses the semantics and descriptive titles of a complex philosophical logic without analyzing the underpinnings that took Rand thousands of pages to explain. So, if Mr. Gerson cannot go beyond the napkin we will.
We have chosen the clear headed, learned and intellectually capable answer (perhaps unfortunately longer than a napkin) of Enoch Wisner, farmer-intellectual, who has kindly contributed to Robbing America in his own words:
“Rand’s, ‘Objectivism’, simply says there ought not to be value ascribed to anything, absent objective cause. Sentiment and personal psychology, the foundations of subjective evaluations, are not trustworthy or, consequently, a sound basis, on which to evaluate anything, from love to the value of a dollar. The notion is not new. Emanuel Kant (“the Categorical Imperative”) says as much: a moral choice can only be accepted as such on its face if it operates to the apparent disinterest of the moral agent. Constrained to objective standards, it is not the poor that Rand holds in despite, but those are poor by their own choice or fault; and it is not helping others that Rand finds contemptible, but helping those who do not make every effort to do anything and everything in their power to deserve help. Rand is opposed to religion because its values are not demonstrable – objective. The faithful accept that “x” is good, not because the goodness of “x” can be demonstrated, but because an unprovable authority says it is – and this is true even in cases where the goodness of “x” IS demonstrable. The devout Christian does not help the poor because a grateful poor man, lifted from poverty, may well work harder than most, but because a mythic being has told him to.
And the notion that anything and everything must be deserved is a direct assault on how we have come to govern ourselves, where the undeserving impose a moral claim on the deserving, THIS is what “Atlas Shrugged” is all about, and there are currently near 14.3 trillion reasons to believe Rand was right.”
As our friend Enoch Wisner suggests, and Gerson misses, it is uncanny, and more than a bit unsettling, to see that, philosophy aside, many of the predictions of Atlas Shrugged of 1956 have come to be palpable realities.
gbk,
I think political expediency is usually a code word for “I’m a sociopath and I’m going to do whatever I want to get whatever I want.” Government is necessary for society of any scale. I contend that a majority of our problem come from faulty processes in how we select leadership combined with pure complexity in the mathematical sense. Too many people with no ethical sense at all other than their greed and love of self over all other consideration get into positions of power. Although the Constitution calls for there never being a religious test for office? Believe it or not, I’m not against the idea of mental health screenings to keep socio- and psychopaths out of office in a democracy.
Gene,
“For example, the prohibition on murder is universal.”
I’m not so sure of this anymore. I suspect you are also given the NDAA and your comments relative to this act. The definition of murder changes with expediency of need, don’t you think? This is an observation of mine, not a belief, merely an observation.
“Is indeed fraught with complication, not the least of which is jingoism and other cultural bias, but that does not change that under it all is a core, universally accepted principle: murder is bad and should be prohibited.”
I agree, but I don’t see governments acting in this way. What I do see is the acceptance of government actions permeating and diluting long-standing broad cultural definitions of murder.
“It is absolute because at its most basic form it is a universal among the species.”
One would hope, and I so want to believe this but current events speak to a breaking of this bond. I don’t wish it to be so, but events speak for themselves, do they not?
Gene – This is going to be my one and only reply to you on this page – and the only reason I’m making even that is to illustrate your idiocy.
This is what I wrote:
“How about compulsory payments to government, which can only be discharged, even if in a single case, by labor: does that labor, by virtue of its “belonging” to government (in the form of the compensation derived by it), and the fact that the laborer has no say in the matter, rise to the level of “involuntary servitude”?
Or, of course, we can skip over all the sophomoricisms and simply discuss what each other clearly means.
Personally, I’d prefer this last, but I’m afraid that some others here just wouldn’t let that be.”
a) The word, “tax,” does not appear in any form. Your delusions cannot change what I wrote in black and white.
b) The sentence beginning, “How about…,” ends in a question mark. If you passed grade school, you’d know that signifies a question, not a declaration…or don’t you know the difference?
c) The sentence, “[o]r, of course, we can skip over all the sophomoricisms and simply discuss what each other clearly means,” implies that all that went before are sophomoricisms that I really did not mean; and,
d) “Personally, I’d prefer this last, but I’m afraid that some others here just wouldn’t let that be,” was written with you and gbk in mind. Clearly, I was right.
Oooo. Taxes as slavery. I take it back. You aren’t a Libertarian. You aren’t even that bright. You’re a tea bagger, Enoch. Are you one of those sovereign citizen clowns too?
gbk – “No. Like the municipal prosecutors in both Raritan Township and Hillsborough Township who lost the case. The charges were dropped last April, ans the “hunting knife” returned to me.”
I forgot to mention, I was pro se throughout.
gbk – “Do you mean like you did on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 leaving Lab Corp at 1 Wescott Drive?”
No. Like the municipal prosecutors in both Raritan Township and Hillsborough Township who lost the case. The charges were dropped last April, ans the “hunting knife” returned to me.
Ariel – You write (above): “Enoch, I’m sorry but this is specious ‘Properly speaking, then, one is only a “slave” whose condition of those Slavs from which the word derives.’…”.
You’re 99% right. Unfortunately, there are some who write here who’d stop an express train for the sake of a semantic quibble – a word you or I might use perfectly well that doesn’t comport with their choice of construction, not whether or not an accepted meaning agrees with what you or I might intend to express. Consequently, when engaging in an exchange with any of these types, it isn’t only prudent, but it’s essential to insist that words bear their most literal meaning. You – I – might as well strike first, since the exchange will inevitably degrade into such compost in any case.
As for that last 1%, there have been conditions of less than freedom in certain cultures that (for example) the slaves of the antebellum south wouldn’t have recognized as slavery as they experienced it – in some cases, far more liberal and, in some case, even more brutal. There are also distinctions between chattel slavery and (again, for example) the condition in which Jews were forced to labor under the Nazis. The person my comment was written for neither made any such distinctions nor did he imply the existence of any such distinctions.
Finally, there is the 13th Amendment: “1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” Does the 13th Amendment make a substantive equivalence of any “involuntary servitude” with slavery? If so, are there any circumstances in which government demands service to it on such terms as we may call that service, “involuntary”? How about conscription? The Amendment specifically exempts those convicted of crimes – may we not infer, then, that if any other manner of involuntary servitude were similarly exempt, the Amendment would say so? How about compulsory payments to government, which can only be discharged, even if in a single case, by labor: does that labor, by virtue of its “belonging” to government (in the form of the compensation derived by it), and the fact that the laborer has no say in the matter, rise to the level of “involuntary servitude”?
Or, of course, we can skip over all the sophomoricisms and simply discuss what each other clearly means.
Personally, I’d prefer this last, but I’m afraid that some others here just wouldn’t let that be.
gbk,
Not to provide too much digression, but “the simple fact that many cultures have beliefs, no less valid than any other, that are eschewed for jingoistic purposes” relates to both the issue of ethical absolutes and the broader question of Conflict of Laws at an international level. What would make a principle ethically absolute is its universal cross-cultural application. For example, the prohibition on murder is universal. What is not universal is how various cultures define murder and how they apply principle to the administration of justice. A previously used example was one man’s capital murder is another man’s legal honor killing. Now the process of examining the definition and application of principle? Is indeed fraught with complication, not the least of which is jingoism and other cultural bias, but that does not change that under it all is a core, universally accepted principle: murder is bad and should be prohibited. It is not absolute because every culture interprets or administers the principle uniformly. It is absolute because at its most basic form it is a universal among the species. This would hold true even if some culture chose not to enforce the principle at all because as a species we place value on our lives and those of our family/immediate tribal group. It’s how evolution wired us.
Now, if you really want to take the example and stretch the cross-cultural universality of absolutes? Consider that humans, despite their cultural differences, are the same species. Commonalities if they exist are comparatively easy to define in a homogeneous group. But what if we were talking about the ethical absolutes of an alien species? For example, Heinlein’s bugs from Starship Troopers? In a hive species such as theirs, perhaps individual life might have little or no value. The death of soldier/worker bugs might be considered a zero sum event in their alien ethos so they might have no direct ethical analog for murder. But what of the relatively rarer brain bugs and queens? Could their culture consider the killing of members of this class a crime? Possibly. Wouldn’t that crime be analogous to murder (as some form of regicide/patricide)? If that were the case, then again we are left with a cross cultural absolute: murder is wrong. The difference is in how their species defines the concept and how they administer justice for the crime. In that case though, the analogy would be stretched to the maximum because truly alien thought would be, well, alien and I suspect such commonalities of thought would be even more disparate and tenuous as differences in species morphology and basic social orders grew further and further apart.
Just food for thought.
enochwisner,
“gbk – …and oregano (I’m told) “resembles” marijuana – but not enough to fool a cop.
Seems like you’re just pissing everyone off.”
Do you mean like you did on Tuesday, September 14, 2010 leaving Lab Corp at 1 Wescott Drive?
Ariel,
Where to start? This is always the most difficult decision as endings are much more easily accomplished.
So I guess we’ll start with your claim of actually asking a question of me in your post of October 22, 2012 at 7:20 pm. Scroll up and read your own post.
I see no question directed at me in this post of yours. I see a lot of innuendo and assumptions, but no question directed at me. You admit as much later in your post of October 22, 2012 at 10:34 pm with a morass of verbiage:
“I did frame it, it was the one Enoch asked, and I framed it as follows: ‘while Enoch asked a question about moral absolutes and applying temporally, drawing obviously from the present.’ I furthermore framed it this way ‘I doubt gbk would endorse the change. I am not picking on you gbk whatsoever. I don’t like applying morality backwards either. But the question (Enoch’s) shouldn’t be dismissed either.’ Now there was a lot in between, all of it framing, so I don’t think I kept it hidden, and therefore I didn’t neglect to ask it.”
First of all, enoch presented two questions, not one, and enoch’s questions were in my opinion rhetorically offered so that he could segue into his libertarian rant. Secondly, enoch did not ask about, “moral absolutes,” in his “questions,” he implied them to suit his own argument. Thirdly, how was I to associate your non-existent “question” with enoch’s ploy given the unfocused drivel of your October 22, 2012 at 7:20 pm post?
But in your postings you provided a theme whereby you cognitively substituted my phrase of, “morally accepted” with your phrase of, “morally right,” with the assumption that, to quote your October 22, 2012 at 7:20 pm post, “I noticed that gbk used ‘morally acceptable’ for an obvious reason, he couldn’t bring himself to use ‘morally right’.”
What makes you think that I used the phrase, “morally acceptable,” because I couldn’t “bring myself” to use the phrase, “morally right?” Do you think I don’t know the difference between the words, “acceptable,” and “right” given the context of this thread.
Why do you think I specifically stated the phrases, “morally acceptable,” and, ” legally permissible,” in the same sentence? Do you really think it’s because I really wanted to say, “morally right?” Have you even considered the fact that I differentiated between moral and legal thought?
To cut to the quick in your references to Gene’s posting of Ethical Relativism:
1. I don’t think there are absolutes of ethical/moral behavior.
2. I would like to believe there is, but history speaks otherwise.
3. History speaks to this conundrum through the various means of war, economic servitude, subjugation of women, fratricide and incest of “royal” lines, delineations of “race” when biologically none exist, and the simple fact that many cultures have beliefs, no less valid than any other, that are eschewed for jingoistic purposes. There are many other historic examples if one searches for them.
So, really, Ariel — what was your question?
gbk – …and oregano (I’m told) “resembles” marijuana – but not enough to fool a cop.
Seems like you’re just pissing everyone off.
id707,
Eagles and vultures are not the same thing. One is a predator. The other is a scavenger.
predator /ˈprɛdətə/, n.,
1: an animal that naturally preys on others
scavenger /ˈskavɪn(d)ʒə/, n.,
1: an animal that feeds on carrion, dead plant material, or refuse
If you are going to use natural world metaphors, at least try not to invert them. gbk does not primarily argue like a scavenger nor do I or any of the others here who apply critical thought to their argumentation. The core method is inquisitorial and adversarial which is more predatory than not. Someone who came into the argument on the side of the predators once most of the wet work was done? Or who argues ancillary points after the main argument was destroyed by others? Would be a scavenger.
There is nothing wrong with either. Especially when the arguments are facially critically sufficient. And your attack on Enoch went to the lack of realism in his argument (a material factual issue). It was far better and more substantive than your usual rebuttals.
Both predation and scavenging are successful adaptive survival strategies found in nature. Some creatures even adopt both strategies, for example, lions and most other apex predators. Some demonstrated this blended approach on this very thread. The metaphor in general works to describe styles of argumentation. However, like many metaphors, it’s not exact, it’s not exhaustively inclusive of argumentation strategy or methodologies, but it does work.
But getting your metaphors backward? Is just sloppy. You must work at having the basic form and relationships down or else you will run into problems with the tactic of argument by analogy: the metaphor’s more sophisticated adversarial cousin.
There is indeed in my mind a difference between “right” and “acceptable”.
But after reading a book: the “Authoritarians”, I find those that feel there are “right” as opposed to “wrong” things, are RAWs and a plague upon all our housess.
gbk,
you read looking for insults and I write slovenly. OK?
You were in the vanguard today (yesterday), NOT one of the late-coming vultures. Not at all.
My love of a sweeping phrase overwhelms my judgement. Borders around beautiful phrases destroy the esthetic value. etc etc
“So am not running in GeneH footsteps, like some other vultures here are doing. The last twitchings of a dying body entrances them.”
Did NOT apply to you.
I had perceived a certain hoverings, landings, and even short inrushes to test Enoch’s life signs.
You often give me skit, but that is OK. One learns from that, although differently.
But no criticism of you this time. Fair must be fair
Your lance was held on high from the beginning.
This may just be a coincidence, but one of the personalities in the reality TV show “Flying Wild Alaska” is named Ariel. Beautiful teenage woman who is the daughter of the air service owner. She commented on one episode that she is not a very good Eskimo because she hates cold. Apparently it depends on who you are talking to and the circumstances.
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/flying-wild-alaska/bios/ariel-tweto-bio.html
Ariel,
“Was I making too great a leap in assuming that you didn’t mean “morally right”?”
In a nutshell, yes.
I choose my words very carefully and it is a mistake to substitute what you think I said for what I actually said — there is a world of difference between the words “acceptable” and “right” within the context of this thread.
Conversely, enoch did not make the claims you attributed to him, they are what you expanded on in reading what you wanted to read.
I’ll respond to your predetermined opinions tomorrow morning as I will be spending the rest of the evening with my family.
Rest up, the post will be long.