From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Tue Sep 27 2005 - 04:37:57 BST
Erin,
Aye carumba! And I thought I had trouble communicating with Platt at time!
[Arlo previously]
My specific criticism of Platt was that (1) he vocalizes a national
acceptance of Judeo-Christian morals, and then narrowly distorts that
moral code to only those that serve his needs, (2) the day-in, day-out
refusal of many christians to assist the needy is hypocritical, and this
becomes doublely so when those same people place high value of material
acquisition.
Can you tell me, where in those two statements you feel I am in error?
[Erin]
Here is a Platt story ..one time he put an article about how people
going to Starbucks for the atmosphere made him glad and then said
something about he wouldn't be caught dead in the place?? It struck me
as odd and seemed to give a message what is good for him isn't what is
good for other people... I guess why it doesn't strike me as
hypocritical is because he admits to what I think is good for others is
not what I think is good for me. If he said "I lov! e going to
Starbucks" and then never went that would be hypocritical to me.
[Arlo]
Yeah, you see... Platt isn't just expressing love of Judeo-Christian
morals in gratitude that they are out there for other people to have. He
is making the argument that everyone in this nation should be subjugated
to that code. Then, he says that he only wishes certain aspects of the
moral code to be written into law, namely those parts that are about
controlling the lives of others.
For example. Gay marriage. Platt feels it should be illegal because it
violates the Judeo-Christian moral code. But, don't even think about
making a law stating business was illegal on Sunday/Saturday.
If all he was doing was opining about the beauty of a moral code he did
not believe it, well, he'd be a hypocrit, but I wouldn't care. When he
posts is support of legislation based on this hypocrisy that seeks to
place control on MY life, well, yes, I do take the time to call a spade
a spade.
As for what is Platt like in his daily life, hell, I'd bet he's a good
guy. He's loving, considerate, and obviously has great insight into
aesthetics. If I knew him, I wouldn't mind having a beer with him from
time to time. If you think I argue with Platt out of dislike of Platt,
you are quite wrong. People I dislike I ignore. We may battle vehemently
and vocally on this list, but I consider Platt a Good man.
[Erin]
Ok so you want to talk a part about a particular sect of the wealthy
that bother you....Christian wealthy. Now if you are going to put
Amish and Christian ascetics as examples that! Platt shows disdain for
you are going to have show me examples because I missed that. Maybe
Platt has disdain for particular sects of the low-income too?
[Arlo]
Actually, no, I have no particular interest in discussing the christian
wealthy. They don't "bother me" really except when they get all upity up
about how "moral" they are. Mostly, I ignore the lot of them. It's their
religion, and if they want to justify being wealthy and being followers
of Jesus, hey, I could care less. But when they start talking about
forcing their so-called "moral code" on me, well... I respond. But
that's as far as I need to take it, personally.
Does Platt have disdain for the Amish. No, of course not, because they
aren't on social welfare. That's really where the crux of the dilemma
is. I think Platt, and many, many so-called christians are quite content
to ignore the poor. Its when they have to help, that they get all angry.
And that's another time I laugh at the hypocrisy. It's easy to "call
yourself a christian" (or a "this" or a "that"), but its another thing
to be called to action.
But to clarify, the Amish aren't poor. They reject material wealth.
There is a difference. The same is true of asceticism. If the Amish
accepted social money for healthcare, you can bet they'd be on Platt's
radar.
As for Platt's disdain of the poor, I think this stems from the economic
valuation that wealthy people are "of value" and poor people are "of no
value". That is, poverty is either a choice (you are too lazy to work),
or the result of an inherent flaw (you are too stupid to have a job).
Many christians feel this way too. Couple this with his abhorence at
having to contribute food, shelter or healthcare to these people, and
the disdain kicks in full gear.
So, if you want to stop talking about Platt, and get on to the Big
Question, we can do that. Namely...
[Arlo previously]
Isn't religion supposed to provide a sense of duty greater than "saving
one's own skin"?
[Arlo now]
Yes, I think that is what it was supposed to do (among other things).
Spirituality is at its core a means of finding connection and
commonality between the self and others, and the self and a
transcendent. Through these relationships, the individual would emerge
with an understanding and acceptance of life as something greater than
"his own skin".
Every religion tradition, from the Occidental to the Orient, from the
Sioux to the Maori, have had the same germ-kernel of enlightenment. We
are responsible for each other, and in acting on that responsibility
fulfilled our responsibility to the transcendent. Smaller, tribal
religions at times placed that responsibility within the bounds of the
tribe, other larger religions bounded the message to all of humanity. I
don't hold this to be coincidence, but evidence that some aspect of the
unknown transcendent sphere was making itself known in all places using
culturally appropriate and meaningful analogues and metaphors.
We are not responsible to each other because Jesus said so. Nor are we
because White Buffalo Calf Woman said so. But when we realize that all
spiritual leaders, all religious traditions, have had this fundamental
message it is correct to ask (I believe) if it is because some aspect of
the transcendent (Qualtiy, or whatever you call it) expresses this to
us. If we strip away the veneer of nationalistic rhetoric, or cultural
specific metaphors, I believe (in MOQ terms) that this is a fundamental
aspect of social Quality, or rather, that it was this Dynamic Quality
that historically led to the formation of the social layer. "Duty to
others" is the Quality glue that holds together the social layer.
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 : Tue Sep 27 2005 - 04:56:31 BST