Friday quote: Clayton Cramer on the power of the dominionists
by KrauzeClayton Cramer discusses the likelihood that dominionist Christians are going to take over and institute a theocracy. (HT: Positive Liberty)
If all the "dominionist Christians" in the United States got together and organized a coup d'etat, there wouldn't be enough of them to take over Horseshoe Bend. I'm pretty sure that I've never met one. The only place that I have ever seen a "dominionist Christian" is being interviewed on some Bill Moyers documentary.
August 24th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Isn't there a theocracy in United States as it is?
Bush: "God told me to invade Iraq". If he did, he is mightily incompetent now, isn't he?
Comment by dimasok — August 24, 2007 @ 11:50 am
August 24th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
How do you jump from one person claiming that God requested them to do something to the notion of there already being a theocracy in the States?
If this is really how you come to your conclusions I think I'm now more apt to understand why you seem to be unable to understand the concepts that are addressed on this board.
Comment by Doug — August 24, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 1:22 pm
Hi Dimasok,
"Isn't there a theocracy in United States as it is?"
Is that a serious question?
No, there isn't.
Comment by Krauze — August 24, 2007 @ 1:22 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
dimasok wrote:
Sure is.
The next thing you know, Bush will be leading the nation in prayer over broadcast media.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 24, 2007 @ 1:28 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 1:40 pm
By the way, dimasok, you should make sure you have a better source than a second-hand translation of Nabil Shaath.
Comment by angryoldfatman — August 24, 2007 @ 1:40 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I freely admit that we are under no imminent danger of the dominionist fantasy of stoning people to death and selling their own daughters into slavery being realized. That doesn't change the fact that the DI is funded by a dominionist for the purpose, not of advancing science, but changing the culture, as has been well known since the Wedge Document was publicized.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Aagcobb,
I don't consider myself a supporter of DI.
But is science independent from the culture at large?
Can one have an impact on the culture by changing what is viewed as permissible (epistemologically) in a particular conception/definition of science?
Regarding the second question; it certainly seems to be the case. Even most scientists who adhere to a realist notion of theory and theoretical concepts seem to be more than aware of the subjective tinged that imbues science to its core. This can be seen in the spin offs of hard realism: metaphorical realism, limited realism, approximate truth.
Comment by Doug — August 24, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 3:58 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
"That doesn't change the fact that the DI is funded by a dominionist for the purpose, not of advancing science, but changing the culture, as has been well known since the Wedge Document was publicized."
The Wedge document praises "representative democracy, human rights, free enterprise, and progress in the arts and sciences" as being among "the West's greatest achievements". The dominionists can't be very discriminate about who they give their money to.
Besides, so what if some people want to influence the culture to better reflect their own views? It's obvious that many atheists support neo-darwinism because they believe it will help them influence the culture to reflect their views. Such as Barbara Forrest's group, the New Orleans Secular Humanist Association, arranging a Darwin Day to "raise public awareness of secular humanism". Does that mean that we should start being suspicious of everyone supporting traditional evolutionary biology?
Comment by Krauze — August 24, 2007 @ 3:58 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Hi Doug,
This is my take on the DI. The purpose of science is to develop increasingly accurate and useful models of how the natural world functions by applying reason to observations. This process has been so spectacularly successful over the last couple of centuries that scientists and their theories have a certain degree of credibility in society that many people desire for their own beliefs. The DI isn't interested in engaging in science to learn more about the universe; the DI just wants the label "scientific" to give credibility to the notions promoted in its books and videos and to enable them to sell those products to public schools for use in science classrooms. They don't care if their notions are unfalsifiable, unverifiable and fail to stimulate research. Their purpose, as stated in the Wedge Document, is cultural: if they can say an alternative scientific theory requires the existence of a creator, this validates their faith and justifies remolding society along theistic lines. At the very least, it will help the DI sell books and videos.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2007 @ 4:28 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Hi Krauze,
Only if you choose to ignore the scientific evidence which supports traditional evolutionary biology, as creationists do.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 24, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
Hi Aagcobb
Even in this description of science there are places in which human subjectiveness will tinge theory development and interpretation of the empirical evidence and observations. Culture as a whole having at least some impact on scientific development as well as scientific insight having an impact on the culture. The two don't seem to be separable.
Historically the theme has been one theory being replaced by a competing theory. Theories as well as theoretical concepts being overturned. It's in a large part because of this track record that have lead many to accept an antirealist outlook regarding the bridging of theory and theoretical concepts to reality. Some (positivists and modern antirealists) denying that science is even explanatory in nature.
That's a bold claim. I don't think you are trying to be disingenuous in claiming it; but I do think the claim is slightly off mark. To me it does appear that DI is interested in engaging in science as well as the culture. To deny that the two are linked in any imaginable way does not reflect the nature of either. From my perspective it does appear to be the case that anti-teleologists are manipulating science for their philosophical ends.
This can be disputed. But for the sake of argument; what theory can be falisfied? It's easy to point to Popper's notion of scientific validity being based on the possibility of a theory being falsified but there's a flaw in that reasoning. Theories, by themselves, do not usually imply any predictions.
Del Ratzsch pointed out:
You stated:
Whether it validates it or not, if it's closer to the empirical evidence and observations, and if it provides a suitable ground for consistent philosophical assumptions (adopting a realist outlook, the uniformity of nature) then so be it.
Comment by Doug — August 24, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
Has it occurred to you that it might be possible that what you describe has already happened, but by a different group than the DI with a different set of values? Honestly, if you look at the origin of the DI and people like Philip Johnson, you can see that their main impetus is that they looked around and noticed that neo-Darwinism is exactly as you describe. One of the purposes of the DI is to remove the promotion of unwarranted beliefs in classrooms as if they were scientific fact.
Many Darwinists look at the DI and say "ooohhh - ideologues using science as a tool to promote their view of the world - baaaaad" without even stopping to think that perhaps the DI is a reactionary movement to a group or groups who is already behaving in this fashion. And, if you read the DI literature carefully, this is really a lot of who they say they are. Read the wedge document again — you'll find that they believe that there already exists a group or groups who are doing exactly what you say.
In fact, look at the education semi-law that Johnson helped pass. It said that students should be able to distinguish between the findings of science and philosophies that promote themselves in the name of science. It seems that, whether you agree or not, Johnson and the gang at the DI think that this has already been going on, and they are merely trying to restore open inquiry to the given questions - rescuing such science back from those who are trying to stifle alternate opinions because it doesn't mix with their philosophy.
Comment by johnnyb — August 24, 2007 @ 10:48 pm
August 24th, 2007 at 11:23 pm
There weren't very many Bolsheviks in Russia around 1917, either. But there were a lot of people whose beliefs overlapped theirs to various degrees. And they didn't have a direct line to the Czar, whereas our Chief Executive is deeply in the pocket of the Christianist faction.
Comment by mtraven — August 24, 2007 @ 11:23 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 12:17 am
Did you truly think I was serious? Oh boy:roll:
Comment by dimasok — August 25, 2007 @ 12:17 am
August 25th, 2007 at 6:28 am
So Mtraven, when will the Dominionist Revolution come?
Comment by Krauze — August 25, 2007 @ 6:28 am
August 25th, 2007 at 7:23 am
Hi Doug,
That is undoubtably true, which is why we look for objective means of analyzing scientific theories, such as repeatability of observations.
Simply because we develop new theories which are more accurate than previous theories would hardly be a reason to conclude that science lacks explanatory power. The incredible accomplishments we have achieved through science is very suggestive that scientific theories must have some kind of relationship to reality.
To me, there is scant evidence that the DI has interest in doing scientific research, which would be dificult to do anyway since their notions are so vague. Atheists claiming that science demonstrates God does not exist are also wrong. However, massive amounts of scientific research on evolution is being conducted by people who aren't trying to prove God does or does not exist.
Del Ratzsch is technically correct, however noone said that theories aren't tentative. I would think that if one wanted to claim ones theory is correct despite the failure of an experiment and the problem was with the cyclotron, one would have the burden of explaining and demonstrating what the problem with the cyclotron was.
Well thats the point, isn't it. There is no ID theory, and likely never will be, only some vague notions, so there's nothing to test against empirical evidence and observation, despite which the DI insists its notions are "scientific" anyway.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 25, 2007 @ 7:23 am
August 25th, 2007 at 7:46 am
Before getting carried away, consider that scientific support for the notion that life arose through non-purposeful, non-intelligent means has been pathetically short of adaquate since Darwin.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2007 @ 7:46 am
August 25th, 2007 at 10:55 am
Hi johnnyb,
Thats what they claim, but it is false. Multiple lines of evidence independently converge on evolutionary theory as the best explanation for the diversity of life on earth. No amount of DI propoganda can change that.
Comment by Aagcobb — August 25, 2007 @ 10:55 am
August 25th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Hi bradford,
You shouldn't complain so much about abiogenesis research. Its possible that research into life origins may result in the conclusion that design is the best explanation. After all, what are some of them trying to do other than design life from scratch? What are IDists doing to research design hypotheses?
Comment by Aagcobb — August 25, 2007 @ 11:02 am
August 25th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Aagcobb:
A short while ago I referenced some studies focused on minimal genomes in a comment directed at you. There are about two dozen names I'm aware of connected with this type of research and likely more. If I were you I would make no assumptions about the stance of each and every one of them with regard to ID. I believe this type of research does indeed offer avenues toward "the conclusion that design is the best explanation."
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2007 @ 11:12 am
August 25th, 2007 at 1:10 pm
Image one day in the future a mysterious spot shows up in satellite photos. After self diagnostics pass, a team to researchers is sent with all-terrain vehicles to check it out (it is in the United States).
What is found there is a large ornate wall, obviously designed. It is noticed the designs carry religious significance. As the researchers approach the ornate wall a big booming voice says "I, your lord God, command you to leave this place be".
I submit this to provoke some self analysis. What do you think the repercussions would be? Personally, I would be more afraid of the religious masses than the force behind the big booming voice.
What would you do if you were one of the researchers? I have no doubt I would want to continue the mission. The only reason I would hesitate was to allow those who didn't want to continue to leave. While I may believe this voice is truly God, there is no logic for me to turn back. God would know I wouldn't.
Would you try to stop me? If so why? For my own good? Would you threaten me? Kill me to save my immortal soul?
What would the country do?
There is plenty of precedent that those in power will unethically ignore the constitution. The opening post suggests there aren't many "dominionist Christians" bent on taking over the government. Why should there be? Our pledge of allegiance was recently changed to make this "one nation, under God" along establishing "in God we trust" as our motto. The Supreme Court granted the executive branch's faith-based initiatives immunity on rational that would pertain to all executive orders. At least one justice on the Supreme Court (Clarence Thomas) would see nothing wrong with having all 50 states establish state religions as long as they did it on their own. The Slidell case is posed to once and for all allow our courthouses the freedom to promote religion. Dover's Buckingham was justified in saying "the United States is a Christian nation", he was only premature in announcing it.
What do you think would stop the United States from immediately pledging allegiance to a big booming voice calling itself God and protecting it from inquiry by force of arms?
Ethical adherence to a 200 year old piece of paper?
The ID proponent's joy over the movie Expelled is about God. The ID critic's joy over the movie Expelled is about God.
The ID Movement is about protecting God; by force of arms if necessary.
ID Science is secondary. NOMA is fine up to the point that someone wants to physically touch the wounds of Jesus.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 25, 2007 @ 1:10 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
TP commenting about a culture war issue.:shock:
Recently, as in for over 50 years? In my neck of the woods the pledge had the phrase five decades ago. In God we trust is more ancient history. It appeared on coins before you were born. These dominionists are sure taking their time.
Are you aware that President Clinton allowed federal matching funding to end in the coffers of a well known Christian charity? But only for a very short time. The money was used to send food to Africa where people were starving. There was much logic to this. The charitable organization had an infrastructure already in place to deal with shipping and distribution that the US government did not have. Secondly, the efficiency of the organization vastly exceeded that of federal government agencies. The federal government typically has overheads that range up to 40% of budget. When charities get to half that percentage it is considered scandelous. Although I was not a Clinton fan I thought the decision was evidence of good sense and was eminently humanitarian. That type of thinking would be anethema to strict constructionists of church/state boundaries. It would also be foolishness on their part.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2007 @ 2:48 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
When talking about histories of empires, I consider events happening within my lifetime as being recent. Paying homage to deities on coins goes back millennia, so yes, it occurred before I was born. If the United States continues down the path it appears to be going, future historians will probably point out similarities to another failed experiment in democracy in Greece. Two centuries after the establishment of Solon's laws and the Athenian democratic constitution, Greece was the world's superpower (thanks to Alexander the Great) they undoubtedly believed vindicated in trusting in the power of the people who trusted their faith.
And what does that type of thinking say about ethics?
Including the ethics of pretending plain words don't mean what they say…
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"
Not "a religion".
Not "religions"
but RELIGION!
Our government is ethically prohibited from doing anything that either encourages or discourages religious belief in this country. However, rationalizing moral and practical considerations take precedent over ethics is an all-too-common human trait. Our government is made of fallible humans who get caught up in group think until one day a government official in a small town in Pennsylvania sees absolutely nothing wrong with saying "the United States is a Christian nation" in his official capacity.
That being said, you didn't answer my hypothetical question.
I am looking to understand how God did it and I don't care if I risk my immortal soul in the process. I am looking for a mechanistic model because If you aren't suggesting hypotheses you aren't practicing science.
Are you going to try to stop me?
Are you going to try to stop other scientists who believe the same as I do?
So enjoy your celebration and the encouragement of your righteous movement. Look forward towards banishing the Aristotles of our times. Have gleeful thoughts of cleansing the nation of impure heretics (in the past they were sun-worshipping pagans who believed the Earth revolved around the Sun, today they are "Darwinists"). However, be careful what you wish for, you might get it and cause history to repeat itself.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 25, 2007 @ 4:36 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 25, 2007 @ 4:43 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 4:49 pm
TP, the USA is just over 200 years of age. That's the context. I am an admirer of the ancient Greeks. They accomplished great things. But there are respected historic analyses of the decline of Greek culture that do not attribute the fall to their faith.
Me: That type of thinking would be anethema to strict constructionists of church/state boundaries.
TP, helping an organization to feed starving people is not establishing a religion. When I see people take a stand like this I think their ideological mindsets have overcome their hearts.
I have suggested hypotheses centered around genomic function and minimal genomes. I liked the RecA comments and the possible testing Mike highlighted.
I'm not celebrating anything other than the wisdom of a president I did not vote for. I'm for tolerance and wish ID critics had more of it.
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2007 @ 4:49 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
Why?
I expect my critics to be intolerant. I hope they underestimate me. Are the ID critics underestimating ID's scientific arguments?
Shield bashing is fooling no one but those who want to be fooled.
You are engaging in shield bashing. Let's talk about the arguments.
First the Culture War…
You ignore the "One nation, under God" by attempting to declare it old news
The same goes with "In God we Trust".
Your explaination for Faith-based initiatives is a pathetic Clinton-did-it-too.
You didn't even attempt to address Clarence Thomas or the Slidell case.
You missed the point about the "failed experiment in democracy".
Second the ID discussion…
Do you want to discuss the implications of Dembski's"¦
χ = "“log2 [ 10^120 "¢ Ï•S(T) "¢ P(T|H) ].
Now?
Do you want to discuss how an ability to learn and/or adapt fits into your ID hypothesis?
You wrote…
What testing did Mike suggest? Nick and I suggested experiments for Mike's hypothesis. Is this the testing you are talking about?
I haven't heard you latest take on the Third Choice. Have you updated your opinion on it?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 25, 2007 @ 5:42 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
krauze asks:
Probably not in the near future, but if the US goes through a period of severe economic, social, or environmental dislocation (on the scale of the Depression and/or dust bowl), I would expect localized patches of Dominionist power to arise, since all the seeds are there and there aren't any comparable organized movements on the other side to counterbalance them. Richard Dawkins' army of A-shirted atheists is not nearly a match of the 20% or so of US society who believe in some variant of extremist Christianity.
For early warnings, check out this, this, or this.
Dominionism is hardly a fringe ideology. It is very well tied into the Republican party and more ostensibly mainstream groups. The Discovery Institute is a prime example of this sort of mainstreaming.
Comment by mtraven — August 25, 2007 @ 8:00 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
TP:
If this is what you have to be concerned with then the country must be in good shape. This is shield bashing in your own words.
My point was that saving lives is a priority in my value system. Not just that, but it also shows America at its best- feeding and caring for the hungry. I do not see a draw back. Clinton did not establish a religion by getting a charitable organization to facilitate US efforts. Opposing Clinton on that issue would have been immoral.
And what point was that?
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2007 @ 10:57 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
Hi TP,
And Doug asked a question that would easily lead to testing. My ID hypothesis is pregnant will all sorts of tests. I would add one more. Did the birth of Rad51B, Rad51C, Rad51D, DMC1, XRCC2, and XRCC3 occur near the birth of eukarya? As we accumulate more protozoan genomes, we can answer this.
The RecA story is just one among dozens of stories to tell.
Comment by MikeGene — August 25, 2007 @ 11:12 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
I come from the denomination (PCA) that was supposedly the home of many dominionist thinkers, but in all my time in church I can't remember a single dominionist sermon, bible study, or sunday school.
I do recall my pastor was alarmed that I discovered some books left behind by a former parishioner in the church library by Rushdoony. When I described the books contents, the pastor decided to toss Rushdoony's books, and I later learned those were the same parishioners who left the church after a minor feud with the pastor a few years back.
In sum, even where they're supposed to be the most influential, they are hardly even heard from. And they aren't exactly popular either.
And I don't recall any move to elect officials who'll enforce mosaic law. In fact, I can't recall any presbyterian theology calling for this.
It's certainly not in our central documents like: The Westminster Confession of Faith
TP is certainly welcome to review what my denomination teaches and tell me if the language is threaty.
Visit http://www.PCANet.org
I did attend church with John Whitehead a while ago, but I don't recall even in that church domionism being even mentioned.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 25, 2007 @ 11:28 pm
August 25th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
TP:
From the link:
TP, I'd like to give it a ringing endorsement but I have the same reservation that Zachriel has. How does this help us sift through possibilites and predict which ones are the more likely?
Comment by Bradford — August 25, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 4:59 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote.
EXACTLY THE POINT!
You value morality above ethics!
You excuse unethical behavior for righteousness sake!
Can you even imagine behaviors that are unethical, yet practical and moral?
Can you bring yourself to admit "One Nation, Under God" and "In God, We trust" is unethical?
The trouble with convincing others you aren't bending rules is, after a while, you start believing it yourself, especially when you surround yourself with like-minded people.
After all, it would be "IMMORAL" to allow society to be led down a path the might not lead to God, right?
So, are you going to try to stop me from touching the wounds of Jesus?
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 26, 2007 @ 4:59 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
All I can say is from my perspective and my dealings with the organizations above it's never come up as a reason for doing business.
The more that I hear this from my critics, the more I'm convinced they just believe what they want to believe. They are not me, they haven't been a part of the network of ID proponents, so the critics don't know the details of what goes on. To hear these accusations only helps convince me the critics will believe what they want.
They speculate that I'm the audio engineer of Ben Stein's movie based on a rumor. They speculate dominionism is the topic of interest in DI business affairs when in fact many in the DI have very strong Roman Catholic affiliations, so dominionist influence would be impossible on those grounds alone ( and I'm totally sorry I even have to bring up the religious beliefs of my colleagues, but I do so in their defense).
The critics don't realize their statements just instill more distrust among the hearers when the hearers are accused of being dominionists when they are not.
Comment by Salvador T. Cordova — August 26, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Bending rules to suit the philosophical predilections of the day is an apt description of the history of case law. The Constitution has changed a little in the course of 200+ years but the outlook of federal judges has changed radically. What was considered a proper church state-boundary 100 years ago is no longer descriptive of today's norms. Why? Because the Constitution changed? By no means. What changed was the moral and legal values of judges. It has gotten to the point where people like yourself would rather see people starve if that's what it takes maintain the current norms. It's hubris and wrong.
Comment by Bradford — August 26, 2007 @ 9:29 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
Apparently it is just not the dominionist that needs to be feared but religion itself. Any and all religion. Look at the following quote which is promoting an upcoming conference in NYC in November.
http://www.centerforinquiry.ne...
So, it doesn't matter whethter or not I'm a dominionist. Just the fact that I am religious makes me a dnager to society. And, my religion emphasizes peace on earth and good will towards my fellow man.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 26, 2007 @ 10:40 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
Hi Bradford,
You wrote…
What does changing the Pledge of Allegiance have to do with starving people? What does the Slidell case have to do with starving people?
What hubris is it to think that only religious organizations try to feed people?
It is your kind of attitude that convinces the Buckingham's in this country that, indeed, "the United States is a Christian nation" followed immediately by a condemnation of the "moral and legal values of judges".
And there is that word again, "moral". Morality must come first, right?
Ethics takes a back seat.
So does reality-based thinking.
So says the moral majority!
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 26, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
August 26th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
TP, it appears that ethics and morality go hand in hand. I'm not sure what you are driving at with your emphasis on the distinction.
As for the pledge of allegiance, I've never been enamored with it whether or not it contains the under God phrase. If recited it should be truly voluntary and if it is, the choice of words should be up to the reciter.
I'm not familiar enough with the Slidell case to make a comment on it.
In the example cited a branch of the federal government was involved in feeding people. They simply used the infrastructure of a private charity to maximize results.
Comment by Bradford — August 26, 2007 @ 11:52 pm
August 27th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Hi Bradford,
Here is the link to the Slidell case.. It isn't that complicated. Ethically the judge is wrong. Morally the judge thinks he is right. The ACLU is staying true to its charter. Legally the judge (and the ADF) thinks that Supreme Court is stacked in their favor.
You brought up the emotional food issue. You used it to try to paint me, and people who thought like me, as heartless ogres who "…would rather see people starve." It was an unethical debate tactic, but it was probably moral, at least to your religiously trained eyes.
Your response concerning ethics and morality doesn't surprise me in the least. In fact it is keeping with what I have been talking about.
I have explained in multiple threads how I see ethical obligations as being separate from moral right and wrong. Ethics can be externally judged, morals can't. If you wanted to question my definition of ethics, you should have done it four comments ago. Instead, you pull the "righteousness" of how ethics and morality are both the same. IIRC in those other threads you indicated that morality lacked substance if there is no religious basis. Does this mean an atheist can't be either moral OR ethical?
So, is the Pledge of Allegiance unethical or immoral or both? Or it that something else you aren't familiar enough about to comment on? Maybe you would rather comment on how some foreigner is selling Tee-shirts that look like uniforms to you.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 27, 2007 @ 1:14 am
August 27th, 2007 at 6:04 am
And you have also conveniently ducked questions about what "ethics" means to you, and how we can objectively judge it. We are left with nothing more than "What TP doesn't like is unethical". So, statements like:
can be read as:
and:
as
As in the whole Third Choice discussion, I ask, Where's the beef?
Comment by RogerRabbitt — August 27, 2007 @ 6:04 am
August 27th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Roger Rabbit raises an excellent point when he challenges TP to define his ethics.
This raised for me another point. TP admits that he is an arrogant person. Indeed, not only does he admit it but he is actually proud that he is arrogant. So, can arrogance ever be the basis for ethics?
Isn't the heart of ethics how individuals deal with one another?
There is a good illustration of this from one of the stories about the famous first century Jewish Rabbi Hillel that is included in the Talmud. It goes like this:
A man approaches Hillel in a nervously defiant attitude. "I will embrace Judaism," he says, "on the condition that you teach me the whole Torah while I'm standing on one foot."
Straightway, Hillel replies:
"What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah. All the rest is commentary. Now go and study."
Clearly what Hillel is teaching here is a social ethic. Jesus appearing on the scene 30-40 years later expands on this theme. He explains to his disciples and to us, in the familiar that everyman is our neighbor. We are to treat every man, every woman, every child with dignity and respect. As individual beings made in the image of God.
So once again I ask the question: how can you have any kind of ethic based on self-centered arrogance? Can an arrogant person really care for anybody but himself?
I think Roger is exactly right: "What TP doesn't like is unethical". That is indeed how a self-centered person would define ethics. The problem is that is not really ethics.
Comment by JOHN_A_DESIGNER — August 27, 2007 @ 11:41 pm
August 28th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Hi John A Designer,
LOL
I am out-of-town on a busy business trip so I shouldn't be commenting, but I just had to react. I actually laughed out loud when I read your post.
It is patently obvious the concept of ethically adhering to promises, oaths, contracts, rules, guidelines, etc isn't very high on your list of appropriate behavior (other than as necessary to be nice to other people).
Pretending humility is dishonest and helps no one in the long term. My direct, honest approach has helped many people advance in the world of business. One of the most irritating things to me is when I see untapped talent wasting away because they don't want to appear too "arrogant".
I will try to get to the other comments later when I have time.
Comment by Thought Provoker — August 28, 2007 @ 10:40 am