From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Sun Apr 24 2005 - 14:00:25 BST
Arlo,
> Part II of my response.
> > Platt (previously)
> >>>Finally, what's actually at "the heart of it all" was the defeat of
> >>>these secular monsters by the Judeo-Christian West, although remnants of
> >>> Communism still survive in the East.
Arlo
> >>"Secular monsters"? You're using the same emotive pairing technique here,
> >>Platt. Lest one consider historical figures such as Clement V to be
> >>"religious monsters". It was not a defeat of "secularism" by
> >>"Judeo-Christianity". Our power structure (fueled nearly exclusively by
> >>wealth) simply bankrupted theirs.
Yes. Not only does capitalism outperform socialism, it's more moral
according to our friend Pirsig. Granted, Pirsig doesn't attribute the
higher morality to Christianity but to Dynamic Quality. But I think
Christian morality played a key role in communism's defeat, exemplified by
papacy of John Paul II who I've noticed you've had nothing to say..
Platt (previously)
> >Not sure what you'e driving at here. Is the religious-based Amish
> >lifestyle your idea of what we should be striving to attain on a wider
> >basis? Are there parts of the Communist Manifesto that you think the U.S.
> >ought to adopt by law? Do you disagree with Pirsig that capitalism is
> >better than socialism because a market economy is by nature more Dynamic?
> I'm driving at the point that many people in the world reject the
> pursuit of wealth as the most important thing to consider in social
> structures. The Amish have a social structure that is akin to Marxism in
> many ways. Indeed, it could easily be added that Marxism + God = Amish. It
> is their "God" that keeps in check the greed and individual wealth fixation
> that drives American capitalism. Since the mainstream American "God" seems
> to have no problem with greed and individual wealth fixation, our social
> structure supports capitalism quite nicely. However, if my belief that
> "your fixation to accumulate individual wealth" should not outweigh
> providing health care or food to those in need, or if my belief that "your
> greed" should not outweigh treating workers with decency and concern makes
> me a "communist" in your eyes, it is a label I can live with, however
> historically inaccurate.
>
> My main point is that capitalism fears the idea that greed and
> individual wealth fixations are somehow less important than anything
> else, and so it villifies and uses deceptive rhetoric against the
> opposition, through misuing labels to spreading xenophobic fear.
Thanks for the sermon, but you didn't answer my questions.
Platt (previously)
> >Money is the means to express values. You and I may not agree with some of
> > the values money expresses, like the earnings of rock stars, but neither
> >you nor I would want to coerce others into spending their wages on only
> >that which we approve of. (Am I assuming your view of coercion
> >correctly?)
> No, of course not. But my point is that money is not the only means to
> express value. So is compassion. So is concern. So is respect. So is
> supporting adequate health care for all people (and not even just US
> citizens). So is a focus on being kind rather than wealthy.
No one in the U.S. prevents you from expressing the values you cite,
except for universal health care which would require coercion that you.
say you are against.
Arlo
> Hm, I think the use of the word "intellectual" in your original post is
> misleading. To say that "many intellectuals are Christians" is to use
> "intellectual" to refer to some skill the person has (an Christian who is
> an intellectual mathematician). I am saying that to get back to Pirsig's
> categories, most "Christians" are stuck in social level religious patterns,
> and are not participating with religion on an "intellectual" (or especially
> "Dynamic") level.
>
> Religion elevated to the intellectual level (such as your concept of
> "intelligent design") breaks down religious nationalism (sentiments such as
> "my Prophet is the Only True Prophet", or God has only revealed Himself to
> a select tribe in the Middle East). Those who continue to profess religious
> nationalism are trapped in static social power structures. Is that more
> clear?
Are not theologians intellectuals? Will you ever address Pirsig's claim
that today's "critical thinking" intellectualism "has no provision for
morals?" Do you agree with that or not?
Arlo:
> Even so, to dismiss historically
> brutalities committed by any power structure, and focus on the recent, is a
> rhetorical move only.
The rhetorical move on your part is to talk about the past 2000 years and
in an attempt to cast a smokescreen over the positive role of Christianity
vs. communism in the 20th century.
Arlo
> >>But I find such statements "intolerance of religious belief" to be
> >>"outright hillarity". Religious nationalism is by definition "intolerant
> >>of any other belief", and has fueled generations upon generations of
> >>intolerance. Now that some people are standing up and being critical of
> >>religious nationalism, I see no greater irony possible than religion
> >>complaining about "intolerance".
Platt
> >Again, you must be thinking about the Middle Ages, and perhaps radical
> >Islam which acts like it never left the Middle Ages. Today's Christians
> >may not be the most tolerant people in the world, but unlike many
> >intellectuals, they are not in the forefront of relativism, diversity and
> >tolerance, then turn around and demonize the religious right.
> You have to be kidding? I'm thinking about America up to the present. Try
> being gay or black or latino or pagan or fill-in-the-blank in any small
> town across America. You'll find out what "intolerant" really means.
> Indeed, you (conservatives) routinely blast liberals for being "too
> tolerant".
> Since what the "intellectuals" demonize is the intolerance of the
> religious right, this is more like your "is the statement 'everything is
> relative' an absolute" argument....
> Is intolerance of intolerance itself intolerance?
Of course. Words mean things. Your attempt to define the "real meaning" of
intolerance is typical deceptive use of language, like trying to convince
us that Marx's call for "forcible overthrow" didn't mean guns and bullets
and gulags. Talk about twisting the language, not to mention ignoring
history!
Platt
> Arlo
>
>
>
>
> 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 : Sun Apr 24 2005 - 13:58:12 BST