From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Oct 20 2002 - 23:32:33 BST
Hi Sam:
> Speaking personally, I think it is possible to have a justice system within
> a Christian moral framework; I think that the social order has both the
> right and the duty to protect itself (indeed, Scalia pointed out in that
> article some of the elements of such an order), but that doesn't
> necessitate personal condemnation in the sense you describe. At the heart
> of Christian awareness is the sense that 'we are all sinners' and 'there
> but for the grace of God go I' - and it is difficult to sustain righteous
> indignation when that is a dominant part of your consciousness. Justice
> becomes something done 'more in sorrow than in anger' - although it needs
> to be practically effective for all that.
>
> In MoQish, and relevant to how this thread started, I suspect it is part of
> the DQ breakthrough which saw individuals as having importance above and
> beyond the social role in which they were embedded. If you see human beings
> - *all* human beings - as made in the image of God, then it carries the
> implication that they should be treated as inherently worthy of respect.
> (Which is where much of our 'human rights' language has its origin of
> course)
Thanks. I think you've explained the Christian view beautifully. For Pirsig
the value of the individual (among other things) comes in his/her
capacity to respond to DQ. That's why Pirsig is against capital
punishment. The right to life and liberty, so esteemed by the founding
fathers, stems from their belief in an individual's intrinsic worth as a
child of God. Like Quality, those rights are pre-conceptual, self-evident
and fundamental. It all ties together.
Platt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 10:37:59 GMT