posted
My friend had to switch schools and change his e-mail address: after he came out, he got harassed and his inbox was filled with several hundred hate messages from the local youth group. Luckily, he had his parents supporting him.
And yes, it will destroy society as we know it. However, we're only slightly speeding up the destruction that interracial marriages have already begun. Posts: 1735 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Paul, maybe I'm reading Lisa wrong, but I think she's agreeing with you by saying opinions critical of homosexual people -- as homosexual people -- are prejudices based on dark-ages mentality, and those which claim they aren't tend to be excuses made by people who don't want to own up to the source of their bias.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Thank you for your inquiry regarding a student that had been enrolled at Ontario Christian School. The student is not attending Ontario Christian, as the family does not meet admissions criteria. The ministry of Ontario Christian is to promote discipleship of Jesus Christ as defined by the Bible and consistent with historical Christianity. The school forms a voluntary partnership with parents who seek the same discipleship. Therefore, the school requires that at least one parent be a confessing Christian and active in the local Christian church. In this case, the parent does not meet the criteria by participating in a homosexual relationship. We regret that this relationship was not disclosed at the time of admission, as that information would have prevented enrollment and the occasion for misunderstanding.
The mission of Ontario Christian school is to provide for the children of Christian parents a Biblically-based, quality education that nurtures students to grow in knowledge, conviction and maturity; therefore, our focus is to equip students with the vision and skills to engage all relationships and culture under the authority of Jesus Christ.
It was just as I said initially. The girl got into the school under false pretenses and was only expelled when she created an issue. In other articles, it is described that she and another girl, also a cheerleader for the school addressed the crowd at a game. It's left unstated what the girls said, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to figure that it has to be fairly inappropriate for cheerleaders of a Christian school.
From the school admissions page, they list as part of the requirements a family interview. This has been standard at both the Christian schools my son has attended and from that experience, I can relate that to pass this part of the admissions process, you'd have to be outright fraudulant if you were an openly lesbian couple.
This really ISN'T about homosexuality. It's about whether or not private schools have the right to set their admissions requirements and enforce them. How right is it to get into a school by lying and pretending to be something you're clearly not? Or does being gay or lesbian trump the ethic of honesty?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Maybe that's true. Maybe there is such a thing. I have yet to actually run across it, but I'm open to the possibility."
You're very very lucky. My gay friends have run into very open hostility directed at them for being gay, and several have experienced violence as a result of being gay.
I didn't say I haven't run across homophobia. I said I haven't come across "an opinion critical of homosexuality that isn't a prejudice based on dark-ages mentality".
You really shouldn't snip if you aren't going to present what I said properly.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: Paul, maybe I'm reading Lisa wrong, but I think she's agreeing with you by saying opinions critical of homosexual people -- as homosexual people -- are prejudices based on dark-ages mentality, and those which claim they aren't tend to be excuses made by people who don't want to own up to the source of their bias.
posted
No one has a right to disapprove of the lifestyle of anybody else. Everyone does things which are abhorrent, and so everyone should just get over their particular abhorrence and then we can finally live a happy peaceful life with no fear of disapproval from anyone.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: This really ISN'T about homosexuality. It's about whether or not private schools have the right to set their admissions requirements and enforce them. How right is it to get into a school by lying and pretending to be something you're clearly not? Or does being gay or lesbian trump the ethic of honesty?
It actually is about homosexuality. It's possible to support the right of a school to set its own admission policies, as I do, and to disapprove of trying to evade those policies, if that's what actually happened (note that the response from the school assumes that neither of the parents could possibly be confessing Christians simply because they are in a gay relationship), and to abhor the prejudice and bigotry that led to those policies in the first place.
I don't think the question is whether the school had a right to do what they did. They most certainly did have that right, assuming that they were up front about their requirements and that the parents did not meet those requirements.
But people have the right to be vile.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: No one has a right to disapprove of the lifestyle of anybody else. Everyone does things which are abhorrent, and so everyone should just get over their particular abhorrence and then we can finally live a happy peaceful life with no fear of disapproval from anyone.
Everyone has a right to disapprove of the lifestyle of anybody else. The thought police haven't gotten quite that far, yet.
What they don't have a right to do is to infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to express nasty views. You don't have the right to do nasty things.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I still don't know that I have enough information here. I _don't_ know what, if anything, the girl actually said that brought the issue to the forefront. I don't know if the parents intentionally subverted the admissions policy or were unaware of it. At any rate, if (as stated) the girl was expelled because of her parents, that would seem to be morally abhorrent from any number of viewpoints, including typical Christian ones. Which doesn't mean their action was illegal, or that they didn't have a legal right to do so.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, the school says that their mission is to build diciples of Christ as defined in the Bible and consistent with historical Christianity. Practiced homosexuality is obviously not compatible with that stated mission. Nowhere in history has Christianity accepted homosexuality as a valid method of expressing God's gift of sex. You can talk about how vile it is that this poor girl was prejudicially expelled -- but it was clear the prejudice existed at the time of admission! I imagine that a child would be similarly expelled if their parent was a practicing Wiccan. Or Muslim.
And I disagree with Jacare about not disapproving of other's lifestyles. It's legal to yell at your kids and call them nasty names as your method of parenting, but I believe it is fully my right to disapprove. That I not only have a right to disapprove, but a social responsibility to do so. And to act in a manner that expressed that disapproval, so long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Everyone has a right to disapprove of the lifestyle of anybody else. The thought police haven't gotten quite that far, yet.
What they don't have a right to do is to infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to express nasty views. You don't have the right to do nasty things.
Ah, but that is where the problem comes, isn't it? Who gets to determine what is allowed and what isn't? Who is the arbiter of right behavior?
This is the central role of culture- to determine what behavior is appropriate to a given situation. In a multi-cultural environment you either have to have a strong set of shared values which apply to all cultures which make up the group, or else you are forced to abandon any pretense toward moral values at all.
Which direction is our society taking?
Those who argue for homosexual marriage or the inappropriateness of things like the ten commandments monument are actively working at the reduction of shared values.
Can we reach a balance point where a subset of previous shared values are still applicable?
Of course, but that point is continuously sliding in the direction of fewer shared values as the list of groups which are acceptable to society constantly increases. Logically, then, the point of maximum "tolerance" is the point at which so values are universally shared in a culture and so anarchy or civil war prevails.
If the current trend prevails then we must inevitably reach that point.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Those who argue for homosexual marriage or the inappropriateness of things like the ten commandments monument are actively working at the reduction of shared values.
No, they aren't. They're working towards the sharing of different values.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: No, they aren't. They're working towards the sharing of different values.
And those different values are?
Edited to add: EVERYONE wants to make everyone else share their values. But of course, that doesn't tend to work too well. Previously it was a near-universal societal view that homosexuality is morally wrong. That view has changed in recent years, but unless the vast majority of the nation comes over to the viewpoint that homosexuality is OK then the compromise position on the morality of homosexuality is "no position"- which is exactly the trend which I have been talking about.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Christian school that admitted a student from an openly gay family might as well just close their doors, because they probably wouldn't keep a third of their students.
I don't agree with that presumption. Not all Christian schools are conservative.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: starLisa, the school says that their mission is to build diciples of Christ as defined in the Bible and consistent with historical Christianity.
Well, that's what their response says. It doesn't mean that they said so in materials prior to the daughter's enrollment. Right now, we lack that information.
I also wonder whether they would expel a child if the parents were found to have fudged on their income tax. Render unto Caesar, and all.
If there are cases of students whose parents also fall short in terms of the interpretation of the school policy that you're putting forward and the school, by its action or inaction demonstrates that they are not going by that interpretation, a case can be made that they are not expelling the child for that reason at all.
At that point, the only question would be whether a contract had been entered into between the parents and the school. If it had, then the school would be obligated morally and ethically to stand by their commitment, however distasteful it might be to them. If there is no contractual obligation, then the school has the right to expel a child because one of her parents picks her nose. No one has a right to tell them what they can and cannot do with their own school, provided they have not violated a contract or harmed someone.
quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: And I disagree with Jacare about not disapproving of other's lifestyles.
quote:Everyone has a right to disapprove of the lifestyle of anybody else. The thought police haven't gotten quite that far, yet.
What they don't have a right to do is to infringe on the rights of others. You have the right to express nasty views. You don't have the right to do nasty things.
Ah, but that is where the problem comes, isn't it? Who gets to determine what is allowed and what isn't? Who is the arbiter of right behavior?
It's really not that complicated. I have an absolute right to swing my fist. That absolute right ends -- absolutely -- where your nose starts.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Those who argue for homosexual marriage or the inappropriateness of things like the ten commandments monument are actively working at the reduction of shared values.
No, they aren't. They're working towards the sharing of different values.
See, every now and then you and I can agree on something. Isn't that neat?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jacare, previously it was a near universal societal view that miscegenation is morally wrong. That women are naturally supposed to be subservient to men. That the sun orbits the earth.
You live and you learn.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's really not that complicated. I have an absolute right to swing my fist. That absolute right ends -- absolutely -- where your nose starts.
I hate this ridiculous example because it seeks to simplify an inherently complex question.
Tell me, where does my right to enforce my morals end, and yours begin?
quote: Jacare, previously it was a near universal societal view that miscegenation is morally wrong. That women are naturally supposed to be subservient to men. That the sun orbits the earth.
You live and you learn.
Absolutely. But the question here is one of trends over time. There will always be a given group which dislikes the prevailing societal trend in morals. And of course morals change over time. The issue here is one of changing morals vs. one of removing morals. Obviously this is a bit of a fine distinction, but the general idea works like this: in the Roman empire during the reign of Constantine, Christianity replaced several other religions as the dominant religion of the empire, and indeed with time it became extremely desirable to be a Christian if one were to prosper in the empire. This is an example of replacement. The Christian religion became a cohesive factor with shared religious beliefs contributing to the sense of community- especially in the Byzantine empire which evolved from Constantine's policies.
Contrast this with, say, modern France where separation of church and state is taken about as far as it can go without outlawing religion altogether. In this case religion ceases to be a factor in national identity, or where it is a factor it is one which promotes adherence to a subculture and a weakening of the national culture.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's really not that complicated. I have an absolute right to swing my fist. That absolute right ends -- absolutely -- where your nose starts.
I hate this ridiculous example because it seeks to simplify an inherently complex question.
Tell me, where does my right to enforce my morals end, and yours begin?
That's simple, too. They both end before they even begin. You never have a right to enforce your morals. Not ever. You have a right to try and pursuade others of your position, but no right to coerce them.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, and morals do not change. Rights do not change. These things exist regardless of whether people recognize them or not.
It may be correct to say that "which morals are recognized" has changed. But that's different from what you said.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's simple, too. They both end before they even begin. You never have a right to enforce your morals. Not ever. You have a right to try and pursuade others of your position, but no right to coerce them.
Sorry, but that is simply not possible, except perhaps in a benevolent anarchy (could such a system even exist?). As long as there is law, someone's morals must prevail.
quote: Oh, and morals do not change. Rights do not change. These things exist regardless of whether people recognize them or not.
It may be correct to say that "which morals are recognized" has changed. But that's different from what you said.
I am not sure what you mean by this. When I say "morals" I mean a set of beliefs held by a given group about which human behaviors are acceptable in a given set of conditions.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
As recently as half a century ago, it was an almost universally shared value that each race should only enter into romantic relationships with members of their own race.
The small minority of people who disagreed worked to overcome this value, and eventually succeeded in convincing the vast majority of people that this value is harmful and archaic.
Did the removal of this shared value bring us one step closer to civil war and anarchy? Did it weaken our society? Would you rather our society still have this "shared value"?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Xavier- I said nothing about shared values being good values. Nonetheless, my comments are still valid for your example.
I think it ironic that you brought up race and derisively asked whether that specific issue resulted in civil war or anarchy, for it was that very issue which resulted in civil war a century earlier- not the narrow definition of inter-racial marriage, but the one of how different races should interact with one another.
Now that you have played the race card I'll go you one better and play Godwin's law: Hitler showed exactly what sort of national strength can be obtained by ideological purity. The Germany of WW2 effected a miraculous turnaround in fortune from a country on its knees to one that threatened the entire world. PArt of this turnaround can clearly be attributed to the program of ideological purity which the nazis pursued.
Obviously this drive carries with it inherent weaknesses as well (such as stifling certain areas of scientific inquiry and so on). All nations must find a balance between including minority groups and ideological purity, however the clear lesson of history is that tipping too far one way or the other is dangerous.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As recently as half a century ago, it was an almost universally shared value that each race should only enter into romantic relationships with members of their own race.
No, it wasn't close to "universally shared."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
I disagree, but if you have issue with my time period, then subtract 10 years.
Still not? I say bullcrap, but go ahead and subtract 10 more.
By "almost universally shared" I mean that something like 95% of americans polled would have said it was wrong. Are you saying this wasn't the case?
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking about this over lunch and wondered if widespread social prejudice has a purpose. Not that the purpose of prejudice is necessarily a good one, but that there is a real purpose behind prejudice, not just emotional gratification.
In Hitler's case, I think the purpose of prejudice was to unify a broken Germany and to restore its power. Germany stood to gain its pride as a nation back, and become more powerful than it was before its WWI defeat. In America's racial case against blacks, it was to justify slavery, and when slavery was abolished, to justify having enslaved. It's obvious (though sickening) what white Americans stood (stand?) to gain.
If this is true, and I'm not saying it is...I'm just wondering...then what is the purpose of prejudice against homosexuals? What do those with prejudice against homosexuals stand to gain?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: That's simple, too. They both end before they even begin. You never have a right to enforce your morals. Not ever. You have a right to try and pursuade others of your position, but no right to coerce them.
Sorry, but that is simply not possible, except perhaps in a benevolent anarchy (could such a system even exist?). As long as there is law, someone's morals must prevail.
In fiction, a benevolent anarchy can exist. Novels have been written depicting them, such as James P. Hogan's Voyage From Yesteryear. So it can be conceived of. In both theory and practice, however, it never could.
And I disagree with you. I think that the basic concept that no one can ever be entitled to coerce anyone except to stop them from coercing others is as dictated by the nature of reality as any law of science.
I would add that since it is, in theory, legitimate for people to use coercion to prevent others from coercing them, and since letting everyone perform that kind of coercion themselves would lead to complete barbarism, a government is required which will assume responsibility for that role. That means police to prevent the initiation of force domestically, armed forces to prevent the initiation of force by foreign powers, and courts to mediate disputes.
There is no other valid function of government.
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente:
quote: Oh, and morals do not change. Rights do not change. These things exist regardless of whether people recognize them or not.
It may be correct to say that "which morals are recognized" has changed. But that's different from what you said.
I am not sure what you mean by this. When I say "morals" I mean a set of beliefs held by a given group about which human behaviors are acceptable in a given set of conditions.
Yeah, see, I think there's such a thing as objective morals and objective morality that exists independently of the choices individuals may make from time to time.
Gravity doesn't change because people vote that it should. Pi remains pi, even if dopey legislatures try to make it 3 or 3.14. And forcing anyone to do anything other than abide by agreements freely entered into and refrain from initiating violence against anyone else is immoral regardless of how big a mob votes to do it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's say there's an apple tree in a public square, an equal distance between two people's houses.
Person A wakes up early, harvests all the apples, and goes home. Person B gets up later to find there are no apples.
Person A arguably harmed Person B, in creating a scarcity of a shared resource. Person A's actions are arguably immoral. Yet person A has not coerced person B in any way. Should there not still be some rule in place to make certain Person B receives some share of those apples?
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Person B needs to wake up earlier. *Yells* "Stop sleeping you dummy! You're losing all your apples!"
Posts: 870 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gravity is God-given / objective. Step off a roof, and ya'll always fall down.
In this life... Rights are always bestowed by fellow humans: If ya use a gun to deprive a man of his right to property, nothing is guaranteed to happen. And morals are always subjective: If ya use a gun to deprive a man of his knife cuz he's misusing it to threaten people, most people will view this as moral. If ya use a gun to deprive a man of his knife cuz he's misusing it to chip concrete, most people will view this as immoral.
God / reality doesn't step in to enforce either rights or morality. Not in this life.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Let's say there's an apple tree in a public square, an equal distance between two people's houses.
I'm not sure what you mean by "public square". Do you mean that there's a tree that no one owns?
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Person A wakes up early, harvests all the apples, and goes home. Person B gets up later to find there are no apples.
Person A arguably harmed Person B, in creating a scarcity of a shared resource.
<blink> No. And I think this is a common misconception. An unowned tree is not a shared resource. It is an unowned resource. No one is "entitled" to those apples. Barring any agreement to the contrary, it's first come, first served.
In a case like this, there can be disputes. Who was there first, for example. That's a situation in which the government can be of use.
But since neither Person A nor Person B owned those apples, Person A did not harm Person B in any way whatsoever.
If you take something that I want, you haven't harmed me. If you take something that I own (without my agreement), you have.
We live in a society where people are so used to crying "I want!" and getting it that it's possible for an intelligent person to say that not getting something that's unowned is arguably a case of harm. That's really depressing.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Person A's actions are arguably immoral.
When you say "arguably", what exactly do you mean? Do you mean that it's possible to make such an argument, or that there is some value to such an argument?
If the former, well, sure. It's arguably true that the sun orbits the earth. I know this for a fact, because there've been people who have argued just that. But there's no validity to it.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Yet person A has not coerced person B in any way.
And has therefore not harmed anyone, least of all Person B.
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: Should there not still be some rule in place to make certain Person B receives some share of those apples?
Good God, no. What makes Person B entitled to those apples?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: Person B needs to wake up earlier. *Yells* "Stop sleeping you dummy! You're losing all your apples!"
<grin> You laugh, but the next step down the chain of reasoning Sterling is suggesting is that Person C, who sees Person A eating those apples and fails to wake Person B up to get his "fair share" (God help us) is also "immoral".
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Gravity is God-given / objective. Step off a roof, and ya'll always fall down.
In this life... Rights are always bestowed by fellow humans:
"That we are endowed by our Creator with certain rights."
And that line isn't why you're wrong. It's just a demonstration that some people know better than you.
Rights cannot be bestowed. They can only be recognized. The framers of the US Constitution, for example, realized this when they didn't write that people are free to assemble peacefully, but rather that the right to assemble peacefully shall not be infringed upon by the government.
Certain rights were considered particularly vulnerable to government violation. Hence the Constitution: a document which explicitly delimits the powers of government. Of course, since the 9th and 10th Amendments were effectively repealed, that seems no longer to apply in the US, but that just means that the protections from government that the founders were trying to put in place were insufficient.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: If ya use a gun to deprive a man of his right to property, nothing is guaranteed to happen.
Sure. You're guaranteed to be committing an immoral act. You need to work on your skills with analogies, or you're going to have a hard time when you take your SATs.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: And morals are always subjective:
You misspelled "never".
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: If ya use a gun to deprive a man of his knife cuz he's misusing it to threaten people, most people will view this as moral.
Doesn't matter what most people think. Reality is not subject to majority vote. "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing". --Anatole France
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: If ya use a gun to deprive a man of his knife cuz he's misusing it to chip concrete, most people will view this as immoral.
Do tell. If the concrete is my driveway? Anyway, as I said, reality is reality. It can be recognized, or not. It cannot be determined by majority rule.
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: God / reality doesn't step in to enforce either rights or morality. Not in this life.
Who said anything about enforcing? I'm talking about identifying. An act is immoral if it's immoral. An immoral act that goes unpunished is no less immoral for all that.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
How exactly does one know what the objective morals are? If there is no way for us to reliably access that information then it may as well not exist, for the purposes of humans in this life atr least.
As far as morals which govern us- regardless of your theory, the fact of the matter is that all governments which have ever existed have enforced some set of morals on their people, whether or not those people agreed with those morals and independent of any objective morals which may exist.
All it requires is recognition of this simple fact to see that people do in fact always enforce their morals on others.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: How exactly does one know what the objective morals are? If there is no way for us to reliably access that information then it may as well not exist, for the purposes of humans in this life atr least.
How do we figure anything out? We use our brains. We stop confusing what we want and what is. We stop thinking of ourselves as having some sort of special status relative to anyone else.
If I can punch you, you can punch me. If I can take what's yours, you can take what's mine. If human beings were incapable of restraining their impulses for their own benefit, then there'd be no moral imperative to refrain from infringing on others. But we're not incapable of doing that.
Can we agree that on the level of individuals, it's self-evident that I'm not entitled to come up to you and force you to give me your wristwatch? That if I do so, I am acting in a manner which is objectively immoral, and irrational, to boot?
Let's start with that, shall we? If we can't get past that, there's no point in going on with this.
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: As far as morals which govern us- regardless of your theory, the fact of the matter is that all governments which have ever existed have enforced some set of morals on their people,
Rules. Not morals. Some of those rules have been moral. Others have not. Morality is not defined by what will land you in jail or on the gallows and what will not.
quote:Originally posted by Jacare Sorridente: whether or not those people agreed with those morals and independent of any objective morals which may exist.
All it requires is recognition of this simple fact to see that people do in fact always enforce their morals on others.
They enforce rules. Which may or may not be moral.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa- it sounds to me like you are saying that objective morals are accessible by logic. Yet beyond a couple of cases which appeal to shared values which are nearly universal (eg it is immoral to take something which belongs to someone else)I highly doubt that you can reach any sort of logical conclusions about morality without extensive appeals to cultural assumptions which are anything but universal. For example, your example about taking something which belongs to someone else assumes that owning personal property is an inherent right. I see no logical reason why this should necessarily be the case. Certain Human societies have done quite well which recognize virtually no right to individual property.
Posts: 4548 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: How do we figure anything out? We use our brains. We stop confusing what we want and what is. We stop thinking of ourselves as having some sort of special status relative to anyone else.
I find this line particularly ironic coming from an Orthodox Jew.
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: How do we figure anything out? We use our brains. We stop confusing what we want and what is. We stop thinking of ourselves as having some sort of special status relative to anyone else.
I find this line particularly ironic coming from an Orthodox Jew.
Rather than consider it ironic, let it serve as an indication that you may have the wrong idea about Orthodox Jews.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can we agree that on the level of individuals, it's self-evident that I'm not entitled to come up to you and force you to give me your wristwatch? That if I do so, I am acting in a manner which is objectively immoral, and irrational, to boot?
I find it interesting that the core of your logic-based morality says "no one in any circumstances should be forced to give someone else a wristwatch," but dithers over whether or not it's okay to kill innocent men based on the situation.
quote: Rather than consider it ironic, let it serve as an indication that you may have the wrong idea about Orthodox Jews.
It could also be an indication that you are not typical of Orthodox Judaism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:the school says that their mission is to build diciples of Christ as defined in the Bible and consistent with historical Christianity.
Yes, I remember distinctly where Jesus says "Suffer the little children to come to me...unless their parents are gay."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The comment was likely a reflection of how I view your posting style. For instance, if rivka (or Ela, or Raia) had posted what you said, it never would have crossed my mind. However, your posting style has such a surety of correctness, to me often approaching righteousness, that the quote I grabbed, combined with this perceived persona (as well as the fact that one of Judaism's tenets is that the Jewish People are a separate, Chosen People of God), came across as ironic. I shouldn't have generalized it, because I really respect what many people here, Jewish or not, demand of themselves for their religion.
Let me clarify: my comment above was more a reaction of what I felt was starLisa's assertiveness.
posted
Squick, Jesus' purpose and the school's purpose are not the same. As I've already pointed out. Several times.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Can we agree that on the level of individuals, it's self-evident that I'm not entitled to come up to you and force you to give me your wristwatch? That if I do so, I am acting in a manner which is objectively immoral, and irrational, to boot?
I find it interesting that the core of your logic-based morality says "no one in any circumstances should be forced to give someone else a wristwatch," but dithers over whether or not it's okay to kill innocent men based on the situation.
quote: Rather than consider it ironic, let it serve as an indication that you may have the wrong idea about Orthodox Jews.
It could also be an indication that you are not typical of Orthodox Judaism.
It could indeed. And who do you suppose is a good judge of that?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: The comment was likely a reflection of how I view your posting style. For instance, if rivka (or Ela, or Raia) had posted what you said, it never would have crossed my mind. However, your posting style has such a surety of correctness, to me often approaching righteousness, that the quote I grabbed, combined with this perceived persona (as well as the fact that one of Judaism's tenets is that the Jewish People are a separate, Chosen People of God), came across as ironic. I shouldn't have generalized it, because I really respect what many people here, Jewish or not, demand of themselves for their religion.
Let me clarify: my comment above was more a reaction of what I felt was starLisa's assertiveness.
I apologize if you were offended, starLisa.
-Bok
I wasn't offended. I just wasn't sure if we were talking about the same thing.
Also, separate doesn't mean "better than". Brown vs Board of Education only applies to law in the US. It isn't always the case.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you are saying being one of the Chosen People of God does not make you in some objective way, better than the unchosen? If not in a legal sense, then in a metaphysically objective sense?
quote: And who do you suppose is a good judge of that?
Hm. I submit that you are perhaps less qualified to make that determination than one might think. But I'm willing to leave it up to God if you are, provided He deigns to post in threads about Orthodox Judaism next time.
quote: And who do you suppose is a good judge of that?
Hm. I submit that you are perhaps less qualified to make that determination than one might think. But I'm willing to leave it up to God if you are, provided He deigns to post in threads about Orthodox Judaism next time.
I was thinking more that other Orthodox Jews might be in a somewhat better position to make that judgement than you, Tom. Though I admit that I am also a better judge of it than you are, simply because I know more about it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: So you are saying being one of the Chosen People of God does not make you in some objective way, better than the unchosen? If not in a legal sense, then in a metaphysically objective sense?
I certainly don't think so. I mean, there are streams within Judaism (some barely within) that do view us as superior in a spiritual way. The most prominent of those is currently trying to reinvent Christianity, by insisting that a man who died is the Messiah.
A non-Jew who keeps all of the laws commanded him by God is on the same level as a Jew who keeps all of the laws commanded him by God. And it's a helluva lot easier to do.
I look at it this way. If you want someone to lift heavy weights, you pick someone strong. The downside is that they could use that strength in a bad way. To beat someone up, say, or to break things.
Similarly, if you want someone to preserve a corpus of law and lore for thousands of years despite persecution and other obstacles, you pick someone stubborn. Stiffnecked, to use the biblical term. The downside is that they're going to be stubborn all around, and not just about keeping the Torah going.
It isn't about better and worse. It's about having a necessary quality.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You know, I'd like to think that stubbornness isn't a trait inherent to Judaism -- that, in fact, Jews are capable of being perfectly pleasant, reasonable people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
