From: Ian Glendinning (ian@psybertron.org)
Date: Fri Nov 19 2004 - 12:56:40 GMT
Platt and all,
Plat said
"What source of morality should [the nation] rely on until the MOQ is as
widely known and believed as religious moral teaching?"
[Which nation would that be ? .... :-) .... anyway, I digress.]
Whilst the discussion board is debating massively complex issues like the
morality of decisions in war and terorrism, I withdrew and made my comments
about being (scornfully) dismissive of those MoQ'ers who hung onto bringing
"God" into [any] debate. (Hopefully you'll notice I'm equally dismissive of
science in this domain, despite my repeated defence of evolution as an
idea.)
I see Mark took it in the neck big-time for taking a similar anti-god line
(given moral encouragement by myself it has to be said - arrogance rules,
OK.)
Platt, you make my point ...
In the absence of MoQ, it is understandable that people cling onto what I
previously called "ancient dumb-ass ideas like god and science" and find
themselves in the interminable binary debate about right / truth and wrong.
What you seem to be saying is that until MoQ is universally democratically
adopted by (most of) the worlds culture, we must continue to defend god /
religious moral teaching as the least-bad source of truth ?
I'm sorry Platt, but if we MoQ'ers are not prepared to defend and promote
the MoQ, what chance has the MoQ of ever being seen as the better source of
truth ? This is why I have been "speechless" (nay, read "apoplectic") to
find MoQ'ers invoking god in their arguments.
Regards,
Ian
(PS 1 - This is very close to my Catch-22 / Political Correctness point - we
need to have the courage of our convictions to drop the habit of using god
(or science) to support our arguments, just because it is the "prevailing" -
politically correct - way of doing things. Better to be branded "arrogant"
and dismissive of 3500 years of culture, than to follow Bob into the asylum.
Let's not go there.)
(PS 2 - Lets' not brand MoQ as "religious moral teaching". Like Zen, it is a
non-mystical "philosophical framework" for a better life.)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Platt Holden" <pholden@sc.rr.com>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>; <owner-moq_discuss@venus.co.uk>
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2004 2:00 AM
Subject: Re: RE: MD Wisconsin School OKs Creationism Teaching
> Simon:
>
> > >Washington answers the question, "What is the proper source of morality
> > >for a nation?"
> > >
> > >I wonder what your answer might be.
> >
> > There is a novel called "Lila: An Inquiry into Morals" which provides a
> > rather nice discussion about the source of morality.
>
> Quite so. But That was
> my thought behind the question. If I failed to make that clear, I
> apologize.
>
> Platt
>
> P.S. Notice that the knee-jerk response so far has been to launch an ad
> hominem attack on Washington rather than seriously address the question.
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
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 19 2004 - 13:00:05 GMT