From: Platt Holden (pholden@sc.rr.com)
Date: Wed Aug 24 2005 - 21:29:51 BST
Hi Ian,
> [Arlo asked]
> But, you say "Jesus' teachings are impractical", and yet you've argued over
> many posts that a "Judeo-Christian moral code" should help govern society
> until it embraces the MOQ.
>
> [Platt responded]
> It's impractical, but better than the Muslim code wouldn't you say? And
> don't you think it hypocritical when those who deny Christianity rely on
> it's precepts in moral matters?
>
> [Arlo]
> My hypocrisy doesn't come close to those who cloak themselves in the moral
> code that controls others, while humming away from the other 90% of the
> book that would examine themselves. You, my friend, are the one said the JC
> code should be used as a foundation to civil law in this country.
>
> Since you've read the Koran, what do you think is "better" about the
> Christian moral code than the Muslim moral code?
The Christian code doesn't condone killing non-believers.
> (For the record, I don't "deny" Christianity anymore than I "deny" Buddhism
> or Aboriginal religions.)
That's good. Does that mean you believe them all?
> [Arlo had said]
> As for Marx, that old red-herring tossed from the picklebarrel once again,
> I have yet to read where Marx advocated "affirmative action" or blocking of
> judicial appointees, or opposing tyrannical dictators, or any of the
> "progressive" 1890ish ideas you wanted "liberals" to "try". Indeed, the
> only one is loosely what you call the "welfare state".
>
> [Platt responded]
> If progressives oppose tyrannical dictators, why are they making such a
> fuss about deposing Saddam?
>
> [Arlo interrupts]
> Because of (1) the false pretense, (2) the Saudi hypocrisy, (3) because of
> our support of Saddam until "W" took office, and (4) a refusal on the part
> of "conservatives" to examine our historical involvement in that region as
> having any possible impact on how those people think/live/feel about the
> U.S.... "just blow 'em the hell up!"
Your "historical" defense of a dictator who throws dissenters alive into
wood chippers is heartwarming testimony to your liberal compassion.
> [Platt continues]
> Marx preached egalitarianism, from which those other progressive ideas
> spring, straight from the picklebarrel. If you insist on calling Marx a red
> herring, I'll call your 1890's anti-capitalist references the same.
>
> [Arlo]
> Marx is a red-herring the way Goebbels is a red-herring. Unless you feel
> that Goebbels is a fair comparison to "rightist" propaganda tactics, in
> which case I'll continue to use it.
Goebbels is a fair comparison to propaganda from the left or right.
Remember that NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST Workers Party.
> Or, since racial groups such as the
> KKK, Aryan Nation, etc. tend to align with the political "right", maybe I
> could use these as "fear" herrings to "expose" the right. Yes?
Since when do conservatives embrace the KKK and the Aryan Nation? It was
democrats by and large, like Senator Byrd, who aligned with the KKK.
> [Platt]
> Did I say blocking judicial nominees was immoral. If so, I take it back.
> What I meant to convey that progressives like to claim they are in favor of
> change, but now when push comes to shove, they're against it.
>
> [Arlo]
> Forward change, yes, moving the clock back to 1890, no.
How about moving the clock back to 1848 with the publication of the
Communist Manifesto, apparently a favorite political tract of yours?
> However, when did
> "conservatives" support trying "something new" by approving without problem
> "liberal" judicial appointees. I'm interested to hear how the conservatives
> do better.
Conservatives do better by voting for judges who uphold the Constitution, not
make new law on their own which is the job of Congress and the states.
> [Arlo]
> What happened to that grand conservative tradition of trying new things?
> Are you suggesting that since its Occidental definition 2000 years ago we
> are never allowed to change it? And here again you are making an
> inadvertant claim to basing our law of the Judeo-Christian code. Is this
> because this particular law is an OTHER-law? If I'm wrong, how do you
> determine which biblical morals you think should be written into civil law,
> and which should not. Marriage, but not keeping the Sabbath holy?
Does not your liberal compassion have its roots in the 2000 year old Judeo-
Christian code? Do you not pick and choose like everybody else? Or, are
you holier than the rest of us?
> [Arlo previously]
> But here you've sidestepped the entire question. Do you favor a majority
> vote on deciding who can and who can not get married, so that you'd favor a
> law banning redheads from marrying? If such a law would be immoral, why can
> the majority determine what sexes are allowed to marry? What's the moral
> difference?
>
> [Platt]
> I favor states voting on the issue of same-sex marriage. Why do you oppose
> that? And If you can't tell the difference between redheads and
> heterosexual men and women, I can't help you.
>
> [Arlo]
> You gave me the biological difference. I asked for the moral difference. If
> states are able to determine what two sexes can marry, by virtue of a vote,
> why not what two haircolors?
If you can explain to me what marriage has to do with hair color, I'll try
to answer. Marriage does have a lot to do with procreation.
> Since you've proposed "having kids" as a moral
> reason, should we allow infertile heterosexuals to marry? Why not, if they
> are unable to have children?
Because there's always the chance that they can. With a pair of homos, no
chance.
> [Platt]
> As far as I know, anyone can leave their property to anyone, including
> their pet cat. Do you know differently?
> [Arlo]
> As far as I know, spousal inheritance is taxed differently than distant
> inheritance. But its not, of course, just this. What about end of life
> decisions? Why should a same-sex partner be denied, morally, a right to
> make care-decisions that a heterosexual partner is able to make?
I don't know that they can't. It may depend on state law. In any event, it
is in the interest of the state to acknowledge and promote marriage
between a man and a woman for the moral reason of social stability and
evolution.
Platt
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 : Wed Aug 24 2005 - 22:46:49 BST