From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Fri Aug 26 2005 - 15:52:46 BST
This is another resend.
-------------------------------------------------------------
[Arlo had asked]
Since you've read the Koran, what do you think is "better" about the
Christian moral code than the Muslim moral code?
[Platt responded]
The Christian code doesn't condone killing non-believers.
[Arlo]
Can you refer me to sections of each code that prove this? Up until very recent
times, Christianity had no problems over killing "infidels" and "pagans" (e.g.,
the de-paganization of Europe, the Crusades, the conquest of the Americas,
etc.). Did the Christian moral code change, or did we finally just understand
it?
[Arlo previously]
(For the record, I don't "deny" Christianity anymore than I "deny" Buddhism or
Aboriginal religions.)
[Platt]
That's good. Does that mean you believe them all?
[Arlo]
It means I view each as a cultural-historical response to the same questions.
[Arlo previously]
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!"
[Platt]
Your "historical" defense of a dictator who throws dissenters alive into
wood chippers is heartwarming testimony to your liberal compassion.
[Arlo]
Where were you during Bush Sr.'s reign when Saddam was our bosom buddy? Where
were you when we sold arms to Iraqis so that they could kill more Iranians?
Where was your moral outrage then? Where is it over the Saudis, and their
proven business and family relations with the Bush Royal Family? Seems to me
your "moral compass" swings whatever way the Neocons tell you to make it swing
at any given moment in time. Jeez, imagine if it was a (gasp!) liberal
president who had ties with Saud. Dear Lord! You'd be leading a mob of
pitchforked "moralists" to Washington! But, how convenient that High Morality
is turned off and on according to party wishes.
[Arlo previously]
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.
[Platt]
Goebbels is a fair comparison to propaganda from the left or right.
Remember that NAZI stands for National SOCIALIST Workers Party.
[Arlo]
Remember that the Nazis HATED the "commies" maybe even more so than did the
Americans.
[Arlo previously]
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?
[Platt]
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.
[Arlo]
Then why, praytell, are all these racial groups supporting "republican"
candidates these days?
[Arlo previously]
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.
[Platt]
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]
Aaahhh... so when conservatives block liberal judicial appointees it is due
to a
High Moral Calling and should be commended, but when liberals block
conservative judicial appointees it is obstructionist, proves they won't try
anything new, and undermines America. I see....
[Arlo previously]
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?
[Platt]
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]
How convenient that you "pick and choose" only those moral codes which
allow you
to tell others what to do. And, I've never suggested (indeed, I've argued
against) using the Judeo-Christian moral code as civil law.
At least be honest in your dealings, Platt. Instead of hiding behind a veil of
"let's use JC morals", just say "let's use the parts of the bible that let me
tell others what they can and can't do".
[Platt previously]
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 previously]
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?
[Platt]
Because there's always the chance that they can. With a pair of homos, no
chance.
[Arlo]
A woman who has had a full hysterectomy has no chance of ever conceiving. Let's
say her heterosexual lover has had testicular cancer and has been castrated.
There is no chance whatsoever they will ever conceive children. Should we no
let them marry?
[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?
[Platt]
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.
[Arlo]
One doesn't need to be "married" to have kids, so I fail to see how "marriage"
fosters evolution. Humans succeeded for thousands of years to procreate without
the need for "marriages". "Social stability" is not merely "having kids". It is
a function of loving people in stable relationships.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Aug 26 2005 - 19:14:20 BST