From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Mon Apr 25 2005 - 20:37:25 BST
Platt Holden wrote:
>>It cracks me up that "Christians" in this country reject providing health
>>care for its citizens, citing that it takes away their individual wealth
>>stockpiles. WWJD? Where are those "Christian morals"? (feeding the poor,
>>sheltering the homeless, healing the sick...)
>>
>>If we are founded on "Christian morals", shouldn't the actions advocated by
>>Jesus be the basis for our static social government?
>>
>>
>
>Sigh. You are probably among the first to get all exercised when you
>detect a violation, no matter how innocuous, of the separation of church
>and state. I'll bet you favor removing "under God" from the pledge of
>allegiance, or removing the pledge all together. As for universal health
>care, most Americans are not willing to sacrifice quality for quantity,
>and rightfully so if you're a follower of the MOQ.
>
>
>
You've avoided the question. If we profess that our government is
founded on Christian morals, shouldn't our "law" focus on his mandates:
Feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless, healing the sick, etc?
I personally don't care about the "Under God" stuff, although I finds it
humorously vacant in practice. After all, the same people who vehemently
demand the slogan "be there" are the same who really only care about
wealth and the acquisition of individual fortunes. How very "Jesus" of
you, err, them.
As for universal health care, what would Jesus say, that its better to
heal the poor (at a risk to the quality the rich may expect) or better
to let the poor suffer so that the wealthy can get exceptional health
care? (Assuming I buy the argument, which I don't).
Or do you only turn to Jesus when it is to condemn "vice"?
>>[Platt]
>>
>>
>>>Are not theologians intellectuals? Will you ever address Pirsig's claim
>>>that today's "critical thinking" intellectualism "has no provision for
>>>morals?" Do you agree with that or not?
>>>
>>>
>>[Arlo]
>>Theologians advancing "religious nationalism" are just as stuck in static
>>social patterns of religion as the congregation who follow their words. I
>>find that most Quakers participate in religion "more" on the intellectual
>>and Dynamic levels than most "theologians" who continue to advance
>>nationalistic ideas such as "My Prophet is the Only True Prophet", or "God
>>Only Revealed Himself To A Select Tribe in The Middle East". Theologians
>>who spend their time writing lengthy treatises on why only their God is the
>>true God, and everyone else all over the world is wrong and going to hell,
>>to be mere voices for static social power reification.
>>
>>
>
>Sounds to me like you only agree with intellectuals who preach social
>revolution, right?
>
>
>
I agree with Pirsig. But wherein what I said do you get that? Or is that
typical avoidance of the criticism of theologians professing religious
nationalism?
Do you disagree? Do you feel that theologians professing "their god is
the only true god" to be serving static social patterns? Intellectual?
Dynamic?
>The MOQ is designed to "give" a moral
>structure to "intellectualism" (as well as the other layers).
>
>
>
>Agree. But how many are buying it?
>
>
Not as many as I'd like.
>Pirsig found today's intellectuals wanting a moral foundation, and thus
>they end up spouting vacuous notions about "human rights." He believes
>intellectuals can find a moral foundation in the MOQ. But until that
>happens, what is the alternative? I suggest a moral foundation that
>consists of Biblical teachings and the common law, i.e, human experience
>over millennia. I ask you and all MD participants, "What do you suggest be
>the basis of morality until the MOQ is widely accepted?" I've asked this
>before with few answers forthcoming other than the usual bromides.
>
>
>
Oh, you got answers. But in your vehemence to associate "secularism"
with "tyrannical dictators" (and ignore history, and ignore the secular
foundation of capitalism and democracy) you did nothing but dismiss any
answer that was not "christianity".
But let me ask you, if we advance "biblical teachings" to guide our
morality until the MOQ catches on, do you think we should advance the
idea that the christian god is the one true god? Or do you think we
should dismiss it?
>>[Platt]
>>
>>
>>>The rhetorical move on your part is to talk about the past 2000 years and
>>>in
>>>
>>>
>>an attempt to cast a smokescreen over the positive role of Christianity
>>vs. communism in the 20th century.
>>
>>[Arlo]
>>Oh please. What is rhetorical about showing the historical context for the
>>wonderous "morality" you say pervades Christianity in the last hundred
>>years. If it is so wonderfully "moral", why was it so brutal for the two
>>thousand previous years? I submit it has to do with a transfer of power
>>from religious structures to secular structures.
>>
>>
>
>Again the smokescreen. You have yet to show all the supposed brutality of
>Christianity other than the Inquisition, and are blind to the role of
>Christianity in the evolution of individual liberty.
>
>
>
Smokescreen? Inquisition, crusades, american conquests, wars against the
gauls and northern european pagans, wars agaisnt the turks, the knights
templar, and how many daily little battles did the church engage in to
consolidate its power. Luckily, anyone who reads history will see
through these deceptive tactics, Platt.
But my point remains. "Brutality" is a function of power reification. It
has nothing to do with "secularism" or "religion".
What's funny, really, is that this defends "religion" as much as
"secularism", but you are so absolutely focused on proclaiming
"secularism" to be "evil" that you neglect history, logic and even
arguments that free religion from claims of brutality in order to
trumpet this proclamation.
>>By the way, I've notice you've cut out my question as to the historical
>>origins of democracy. You made the claim that it was "Judeo-Christian". I
>>made the claim that it was pre-Christian Greek and Iroquios, asking that if
>>was a Judeo-Christian construct, why it never appeared during the two
>>thousand years that the Judeo-Christian church held power? No response?
>>
>>
>
>I thought you were kidding, especially about the Iroquois. David Landes,
>economic historian and author of "The Wealth and Poverty of Nations"
>explains. Europe's buoyant political and economic dynamism (remind you of
>Pirsig?) required three specific theological breakthroughs: the Judeo-
>Christian respect for manual labor, the Judeo-Christian subordination of
>nature to man, and the Judeo-Christian sense of linear time. He also
>emphasizes how the authority of God, conscience and church limits the
>authority of secular state claims and thus creates space for liberty.
>
>
>
Really? Why then do none of these senses and respects make any
appearance at all, historically, before the age of reason (i.e.,
rational secularism)? Could it be that they were applied "retroactively"
to Christianity?
Too many scholars have long recognized the contributions (evidenced
strongly in the letters of Ben Franklin) of the Iroquious on the
creation of "democracy" in this country. And of course the pre-Christian
greeks "invented" it.
Nowhere in the two thousand year of christian domination do we see ANY
evidence of democracy... until the age of reason, and rational
secularism. Can you account for that?
>>Our founders called for a "forcible overthrow" of monarchical power. Did
>>they mean that we should employ gulags in support of a dictator? Guns and
>>bullets, maybe. We used them in our "revolution". Indeed, they've been used
>>in every revolution (force has, before gunpowder it was swords and arrows).
>>
>>
>
>Our revolution was for liberty from government while Marx's revolution
>requires the imposition of a dictatorship. That you don't see a difference
>is startling. That you don't admit to the secular communist horrors of
>past 100 years is mind-boggling. That you see Christianity as threatening
>(talk about fear-mongering) compared to the godless ideologies that
>produced the Holocaust, the Gulag and the Terror of the French Revolution
>is beyond belief.
>
>
>
See my previous post as to your McCarthian distortion of "dictatorship".
I don't see "christianity as threatening". I see as threatening what the
church, just like the secular governments that replaced it, did in the
name of power... because I, or anyone else, can pick up a history book
and read what life was like under "christian" power domination during
the two thousand years the church held power. Something you can use
those talk-radio tactics to try to cloud all you want, but anyone can
pick up Columbia's History of the World and see what history reveals.
Its in the power, Platt. Not in "secular" and not in "religion".
Arlo
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Apr 27 2005 - 02:34:21 BST