Inasmuch as we are expected to show certain respect for one another's beliefs, what is the responsibility of the believer? If we expect such respect for our beliefs, do we owe the audience, as such, anything?
If acting in accord with a belief results in what we call injustice, what respect do we owe that belief? If the only foundation for rejecting the label of injustice is to agree with what cannot be demonstrated, or is demonstrated false, what do we really expect?
Are we hateful to reject ethnic supremacy theories? Is it really oppression if one cannot punish officially what one believes God says is wrong? How many question marks can I get into this post?
A few practical examples:
Such seemingly bizarre assertions are where I base a certain mockery: "How dare you oppress us by making us be equal to everyone else!"
Look, I know there are certain things that make no sense to me that are very important for other people. Like the whole gay thing, for instance. It is apparently really important for some people to have someone left to hate for no logical reason. Okay, that's harsh, yes.
It's a difficult thing to explain sometimes: "It's not that you must do things my way, but if you do things my way, you're free, I'm free, everyone's free. If we do things as you're proposing, that's not true."
And that's essentially what gets me about a lot of moral, ethical, and judicial debates. After a while, it seems clear that what is missing is an sense of realism. How the hell, for instance, do we go from two consenting adults of the same gender having sex to raping dogs and horses and children and corpses? There always seems to be something about mob-culture morality that overlooks basic issues. And you know, fine, whatever, be frightened for the children. Isn't there something unethical, though, about empowering the Devil in order to have someone to fight? If instant gratification is so bad, why are even the righteous rushing to be fulfilled?
Like the NAMBLA one. Legalizing pedophilia. How, exactly, does that one work out? I always hammer on the word consent, but some folks blink and stare like I'm jabbering Ojibwa. But really, really. Seriously. How do we go from gay folks getting married to undoing the age of consent and the government's duty to protect the general welfare? Remember: it's the Puritans that were daubing their daughters. What, what, what?
I remember I once was reading through the footnotes of some report by a conservative policy group about how homosexuality is so bad for society. Man, I had no idea NAMBLA was so big, and that people took the cause so damned seriously. Other people, I mean. Apparently, NAMBLA is dangerously appealing in the mainstream. Or, at least, that's what you would think until you found out all of this was based on the word of a NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) member living in South Africa.
But let's be real here. As a matter of fact ... hey, there's the poll question. And public answers .... You'll have to 'fess up, of course, but come on ....
Really. Seriously. Come on.
Who knows? I could learn something here.
But it seems to me that the panic rhetoric, while it certainly does address a serious issue (e.g. pedophilia), there's something dishonest about the leap. It presumes extremes, a "with us/against us" mentality that does not seem well-founded. I mean, I'm pretty damn sure--to the point of stating it as a fact--that there are people who enjoy sex with their own gender who don't prefer or wish to prefer sex with children, dogs, corpses, or our cousins.
Wouldn't it be strange to call the statistical norm the gray zone?
Or religion. Look, believe what you want about the creation of the world. The integrity of the evolutionary Universe theory is pretty damn solid. The Intelligent Design assertion rests entirely on its exploitative position: without a perfect record, there can be no perfect retelling. Evolution will always have gaps in it, but the hypothesis is not only valid but also reliable. The problem of Intelligent Design as a scientific counterpoint is not in its religious and political motivations but its lack of a testable hypothesis.
It's not about oppressing anyone. But seats of traditional advantage will lose ground in the equalizing.
And what of the racists? Look, I'll even ignore the bit about racial interbreeding being an act of genocide. Evolutionary theory, applied to the historical record, speaks against separatism. That a white man is equal to a black man should not be an insult to the white man, and only the white man can choose that it is a slight.
There are some things, when we look at other people, that we simply respond to by acknowledging, "That's your problem."
Do we really show such disrespect by not conforming to ... oh ... say ... hell, pick a platform. It's not that I actually want to hurt Christians, but no, the evangelical right-wing of the GOP does not get its way. It's not about oppression. I'm free, they're free ... how is it oppressive to not be allowed to oppress someone else? We're all free. Isn't that the goal? Am I really a tyrant if I demand a very good reason to change my intentions?
What kind of hatemonger am I?
If acting in accord with a belief results in what we call injustice, what respect do we owe that belief? If the only foundation for rejecting the label of injustice is to agree with what cannot be demonstrated, or is demonstrated false, what do we really expect?
Are we hateful to reject ethnic supremacy theories? Is it really oppression if one cannot punish officially what one believes God says is wrong? How many question marks can I get into this post?
A few practical examples:
- Christian parent complains to school board about novel in high school library: Robert McKammon's Demon Walk, by its very presence and content, violates her children's First Amendment rights. (That a public library has a book containing a character named "Demon" violates a Christian's rights.)
- The Supreme Court, in ruling anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, violated White Supremacists. (To sanction marriages the supremacist doesn't like violates the supremacist's First Amendment rights and imposes a state-sanctioned belief upon him/her.)
- Liberal conspirators, in refusing Intelligent Design as non-scientific, are violating Christians' rights by installing a state-sanctioned religion and suppressing the merits of an untestable hypothesis. (By not recognizing a theological assertion as having the same scientific value as a scientific hypothesis, we are violating the Christian's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.)
- The Supreme Court, in ruling anti-miscegenation laws unconstitutional, violated White Supremacists. (To sanction marriages the supremacist doesn't like violates the supremacist's First Amendment rights and imposes a state-sanctioned belief upon him/her.)
- Liberal conspirators, in refusing Intelligent Design as non-scientific, are violating Christians' rights by installing a state-sanctioned religion and suppressing the merits of an untestable hypothesis. (By not recognizing a theological assertion as having the same scientific value as a scientific hypothesis, we are violating the Christian's First and Fourteenth Amendment rights.)
Such seemingly bizarre assertions are where I base a certain mockery: "How dare you oppress us by making us be equal to everyone else!"
Look, I know there are certain things that make no sense to me that are very important for other people. Like the whole gay thing, for instance. It is apparently really important for some people to have someone left to hate for no logical reason. Okay, that's harsh, yes.
It's a difficult thing to explain sometimes: "It's not that you must do things my way, but if you do things my way, you're free, I'm free, everyone's free. If we do things as you're proposing, that's not true."
And that's essentially what gets me about a lot of moral, ethical, and judicial debates. After a while, it seems clear that what is missing is an sense of realism. How the hell, for instance, do we go from two consenting adults of the same gender having sex to raping dogs and horses and children and corpses? There always seems to be something about mob-culture morality that overlooks basic issues. And you know, fine, whatever, be frightened for the children. Isn't there something unethical, though, about empowering the Devil in order to have someone to fight? If instant gratification is so bad, why are even the righteous rushing to be fulfilled?
Like the NAMBLA one. Legalizing pedophilia. How, exactly, does that one work out? I always hammer on the word consent, but some folks blink and stare like I'm jabbering Ojibwa. But really, really. Seriously. How do we go from gay folks getting married to undoing the age of consent and the government's duty to protect the general welfare? Remember: it's the Puritans that were daubing their daughters. What, what, what?
I remember I once was reading through the footnotes of some report by a conservative policy group about how homosexuality is so bad for society. Man, I had no idea NAMBLA was so big, and that people took the cause so damned seriously. Other people, I mean. Apparently, NAMBLA is dangerously appealing in the mainstream. Or, at least, that's what you would think until you found out all of this was based on the word of a NAMBLA (North American Man-Boy Love Association) member living in South Africa.
But let's be real here. As a matter of fact ... hey, there's the poll question. And public answers .... You'll have to 'fess up, of course, but come on ....
Really. Seriously. Come on.
Who knows? I could learn something here.
But it seems to me that the panic rhetoric, while it certainly does address a serious issue (e.g. pedophilia), there's something dishonest about the leap. It presumes extremes, a "with us/against us" mentality that does not seem well-founded. I mean, I'm pretty damn sure--to the point of stating it as a fact--that there are people who enjoy sex with their own gender who don't prefer or wish to prefer sex with children, dogs, corpses, or our cousins.
Wouldn't it be strange to call the statistical norm the gray zone?
Or religion. Look, believe what you want about the creation of the world. The integrity of the evolutionary Universe theory is pretty damn solid. The Intelligent Design assertion rests entirely on its exploitative position: without a perfect record, there can be no perfect retelling. Evolution will always have gaps in it, but the hypothesis is not only valid but also reliable. The problem of Intelligent Design as a scientific counterpoint is not in its religious and political motivations but its lack of a testable hypothesis.
It's not about oppressing anyone. But seats of traditional advantage will lose ground in the equalizing.
And what of the racists? Look, I'll even ignore the bit about racial interbreeding being an act of genocide. Evolutionary theory, applied to the historical record, speaks against separatism. That a white man is equal to a black man should not be an insult to the white man, and only the white man can choose that it is a slight.
There are some things, when we look at other people, that we simply respond to by acknowledging, "That's your problem."
Do we really show such disrespect by not conforming to ... oh ... say ... hell, pick a platform. It's not that I actually want to hurt Christians, but no, the evangelical right-wing of the GOP does not get its way. It's not about oppression. I'm free, they're free ... how is it oppressive to not be allowed to oppress someone else? We're all free. Isn't that the goal? Am I really a tyrant if I demand a very good reason to change my intentions?
What kind of hatemonger am I?