Letters to the Editor
-
The REAL point behind all this...
Arty: Your comment about veering from the main topic, however, seems more inaccurate than anything else you wrote.
The topic is supposed to be about Karen Armstrong's book :-)
-
Gross generalizations for your enjoyment
Much as I would love to prolong our discussion, I would hate to think some of us might disappear with no conclusion or majority of agreement, if that is one outcome. So let me summarize what I've taken away thus far:
- Humans evolved from animals and still carry some of the instincts that were essential for survival in the day but may be detrimental to our complex society now.
- Humans are a social animal, and generally benefit from each other's company.
- The great advances of civilization have come about by human altruism and abstract thinking, which were both developed after humans progressed from their base animal state.
- Humans have come to realize that the Golden Rule is a better form of ethics than other alternatives, and those who adopt it have a greater chance of flourishing.
- 'Enlightened' society tries to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, even if such trust carries risks of being abused by a few.
- Many problems of society are the result of human greed, which is a vestigial artifact left over from survival impulses in times of scarcity.
- Not all humans are equal in terms of intellect, self-confidence, and moral stability.
- Some members of society do not have the capacity to govern themselves properly, and look to others for leadership.
- If the Golden Rule is violated, 'laws' must be written and enforced to maintain civil order.
- Democratically-established laws have the potential to be the most equitable for the populace that creates them.
- Greedy people realize that if they write, influence, or control the laws, they will benefit personally at the expense of others.
- Unjust laws can do more harm than good.
- Different cultures have created similar sets of laws, independently arriving at many of the same conclusions, but have thus far not universally agreed on a standard set that applies to all humanity.
- Given that there are disassociated societies with their accompanying laws, greedy societies will try to use their laws to govern others in an effort to get the upper hand.
- Greedy societies (or individuals), once in a position of power, will undertake more greedy actions to remain in power.
- Altruistic individuals (or societies), when confronted with injustices, will attempt to restore fairness for all and reestablish trust amongst fellow citizens.
- When all is said and done, Nature bats last.
I've probably missed a few aphorisms, but the above seems to encapsulate what we've been talking about. Please contribute additional points as they apply to our discussion and we can refer to them as shorthand if our flowing prose gets to be too much for the remaining die-hards.
I just wanted to get that much out of the way. Thank you for your indulgence.
-
An unchallenged assumption
on the part of Arty Kraft deserves examination by those of us who remain engaged in this discussion. To wit, Arty has contended in several posts that the tenets of America's civil religion, i.e. the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, have somehow failed.
"Those presumptions and those values proved inadequate. Consequently, as in today's environment, religious factions stepped into the ethical vacuum, first with the Great Awakening and then with the Prohibition movement, along with other sundry groups."
By pointing to a long list of societal ills, some that are real and some that are debatable, Arty arrives at the conclusion that our secular government is helpless to stop the tide of moral decay.
But of course, moral decay has always been with us, in one form or another, and it is precisely the genius of our founders that they took that into account when they sought to protect our society from the tyranny of the majority as well as from the crimes of the individual.
Just because humans are, and have always been, corrupt and morally imperfect does not mean that the rule of law has failed. Religion has been no more successful at morally perfecting men and women over the long haul than has secular government. In fact, for centuries a system of church courts coexisted with secular courts in Europe, but neither succeeded in stamping out original sin or human weakness or whatever you choose to call it.
The reason that secular humanistic government is always preferable to religious government is that it is catholic with a small 'c,' allowing for a diversity of religious beliefs and a latitude of opinion that has never been available in theocratic or church-dominated societies. By secularizing the golden rule (not that there is anything intrinsically religious about it to begin with), and applying it to all, the concept of heresy was thankfully rendered obsolete.
My question for Arty, then, is this: if he believes secular government has failed us, with what does he propose to replace it? And does he really believe that we would not be better off if, instead of a plethora of contending faiths and religions we could simply apply the golden rule universally and in a secular humanist context?
-
,
>Fourier
There's a great exchange between two actors in the movie "Metropolitan." Not the exact quote, but:
"So you're a Fourierist. But how can you be a Fourierist after their experiment failed?"
"Well I'm not sure you can definitively say it failed. I mean, that it ceased to exist, I'll grant you, but--"
"See, that's where we disagree. I think that ceasing to exist is a definite indication of failure."
-
,
deluxe, thank you for your list of points. Though this may have seemed odd tangents, and only I thought they were important, I do think they are:
1) I still think that the Abrahamic religions are predicated largely essentially on telepathic communication (prayer, annunciation, etc.); I still believe it may be possible to measure these phenomena
2) I believe that whether you call it prayer, meditation, thinking things over, or just taking quiet time, it is important to take moments away from the world to focus and go within. This moment is also a key to many of the major religions.
3) The Golden Rule is also key. Selfishness sucks. Without the Golden Rule, religion sucks, and with it, atheism doesn't suck.
I agree completely about the ornate (religion) tent posts. To return to the college analogy: the proselytizer is a high-school guidance counselor, who can only see the atheist (he or she who teaches him or herself, without going to college) as a goth loser, so the former keeps chirping at the latter: "so have you chosen your college yet? You've got to go to college! You're going to go, aren't you? Haven't you chosen yet?" Worse, they won't be happy unless you go to their own Alma Mater. Their victim, meanwhile, thinks: "Jesus, lady, will ya give it a rest already?" And, if a worthwhile person, is planning to rehearse without ceasing at their instrument/train hard at their chosen major league sport/study hard and become literate on their own/start their own business/etc. etc. achievement without college. The proselytizer/guidance counselor is trying to force something, though it's good for some, on everyone. That's wrong.
The atheist/person who eschews college, on the other hand, may become so pissed at the proselytizer/guidance counsellor that they suggest: "get rid of ALL the colleges/religions!" Which, by the way, they can bolster with stories of sexism (colleges for centuries refused to admit women), homophobia (colleges for decades taught that gayness was a mental illness), and anachronistic inaccuracy, even in their supposed area of expertise (the science of psychology in the previous example/moral teachings of Love in the case of the Church). But to get rid of all colleges or religions would be to get rid of something that the majority of their respective attendees have found very worthwhile, on balance. That's also wrong.
Live and let live.