posted
I know that some Christians count 'em differently than we Jews do. (F'rinstance, it is one of many things bugs the snot out of me about the "writing of the tablets" scene in The Ten Commandments.) I don't recall how the count is different, just that it is. Hence my parenthetical.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
According to wiki, "honor thy parents" is 4th for the Roman Catholic, Lutheran & Anglican faiths and 5th for LDS and the Jewish faith. I assumed everyone agreed at least on the 10 Commandments, but they don't.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love many people I do not trust, especially in my family.
I honor many people I do not love.
I trust many people I do not honor.
And while we're at it, I think the act of "honoring someone" is substantially different in meaning from "possessing honor" or "behaving honorably."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: I assumed everyone agreed at least on the 10 Commandments, but they don't.
Why would you assume that?
In fact, I only use the term "Commandments" to avoid confusion (it is the common usage). Better would be "Statements" -- there are more than 10 commandments in there, as well as parts that are declarative alone.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's 5th for most Protestants as well, but the Protestant and LDS numbering is still different than the Jewish numbering, because the division between #1 & #2 is in a different place. The Jewish break is between "I am the Lord your God" and "You shall have no other gods before me." The LDS and Protestant numbering includes that all under #1 and has the "no graven images" line by itself as #2. Catholics group all of that together as #1 and split what everyone else calls #10 into coveting your neighbor's wife as #9 and coveting all the other stuff as #10.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think there are multiple definitions of honor, that they inter-relate to a degree, but that their free intermixture leads to a certain amount of confusion. So 'tis in my head, anyway.
Joe has honor: he does what he says he will, he accepts responsibilities even when they are onerous to him, he carries through to the best of his ability in the name of a moral code without other consideration of outcome.
Joe has honor: He honors traditions, establishments, his parents, his elders, his nation, God. He has honor because he honors those he should honor.
Joe has honor: He maintains a successful business, a sound marriage, a family that is progressing in the expected ways. He does not evidence flaws in what are expected of someone in his caste/class/position/status/standing.
As I say, all three could be said to have honor/show honor/be honorable; arguably there are overlaps and similarities; but the three are not identical.
To one standard, honor could never be taken away by the actions of another, because honor is only how one judges oneself and one's actions. Yet in some times and some places, a woman could be dishonored by losing her virginity (willingly or unwillingly), a husband could be dishonored by an insolent child or an unfaithful wife, a businessman could be dishonored by a failure of his company or division (whether he had any direct control over the failure or no.)
I *think* what Mr. Squicky is trying to say is that a relationship maintained only on a basis of honor is the horrible, and that while honor could be an element of a relationship, it should not be anticipated that honor is in some sense the "sine qua non" of a relationship.
And while a single line or lines taken out of context in Card's essay wouldn't necessarily be attributed to the point of view that honor is the crucial factor in any number of societal structures, I could easily see that interpretation based on the combination of lines such as
quote:It is honor that keeps a married man from flirting with a woman who is not his wife. It is honor that holds parents to their responsibility to their children, sacrificing much so their children can thrive. It is honor that makes adult children care for their aging parents to the grave.
along with the succeeding paragraphs that the downfall of honor has led to cheating spouses, dishonest businesspeople, and... Um, Democrats in Congress, I guess.
Without honor, the theme seems to be, all these things fall to pieces.
And, as I say, I think there's a confusion here... The honor due one's country, the honor due the office of the presidency, the honor of keeping one's word, the honor of performing in the expected fashion of a member of Congress or a soldier.
As far as relationships go, while I certainly believe that honor- perhaps in all three senses- can and should be a part of the relationship between spouses or parent and child, I hesitate to make it mandatory. Wolves and ravens, for example, have been known to display elaborate social behaviors, care for young, mate for life... Yet I would hesitate to ascribe the human notion of 'honor' to them.
I mirror Synthesia and Lyrhawn's frustration. It amazes me how callously and ignorantly Card can insult and dismiss millions of people, determining all their motivations as base and duplicitous by fiat. I can and do understand the beliefs and fears that cause people to conclude that the efforts in Iraq are righteous and/or necessary, though I do not agree. Card continues to show neither such an understanding nor any interest in acquiring one.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the two most important definitions are these:
1) "Honor" as respect 2) "Honor" as commitment
Arguing that Democrats do not recognize that a commitment has been made to Iraq would be, in my opinion, a much more effective way to make the same point -- and also offer the opportunity to discuss alternative methods by which this commitment can be fulfilled if we agree that the current approach is failing.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
One more thing... In that line about China and all the other country's human rights violations it makes me think of a younger brother whining about how the older brother can do whatever he wants. The problem is that because America is represented as a country of freedom and honor, it has to be held to a higher standard in a way, especially in the eyes of other countries who will just state, "You talk about how free you are and yet, here you are doing this? How dare you tell us what to do?" Which China has done just rrecently...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn-- sorry if I came off nitpicky. I think I misinterpreted your statement as saying that soldiers were abandoning the army.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
"Abandoning" to me would assign motive to the troops. I have no idea what reasons they have for leaving the service, I just know they are.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
From what I've read, I'm not sure if the Republican party is totally honorable when it comes to troops. Stating that a soldier with post tramatic stress disorder and problems from it got into the military with a pre-existing mental condition to avoid paying a pention...
If that is true...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think they are any more honorable than Democrats as a rule. It was Bush, the leading Republican, who threw a hissy fit when Congress wanted to restore full Veteran's benefits because it would cost so much and screw up his Defense budget. I'm not aware of how Congressional Republicans behaved during the incident.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot comprehend that. Usually I try to keep open-minded. I dislike Bush, but I try not to let it cloud my judgement, but what little I know of him makes me mistrust him and his party so much... I feel that they lack honour and do not care about the troops as much as they'd like people to think they care about them. They also seem to use very tired arguements against people who disagree with them, the way a small child might. Like if you state that they were not prepared to fight the war in Iraq or that the war in Iraq is doomed to failure they'd call you a defeatest or something and site some instances that seem watered down. They posture alot. They, and Bush especially have the stereotypical aspect of masculinity I hate because it's just so dangerous, these attitutes that they nourture and keep alive. Do they have any idea what a war against Islam would DO to this world? We barely have enough resources as it is. We do not need much of the world's population destroyed because of their foolishness and the foolishness of Islam fascists who are only interested in control and not the people. Really, there needs to be a shift into focusing on things that really matter and not illusions the way we have over the last millenium of human history. But I doubt this will happen any time soon and the attitutes Bush, OSC and so many others support really do not help us one bit...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
