If you don't care about morals, stop wagging fingers...

I think it's about time more Democrats stand up, be vocal, and shout out about morality.

Not pretense. Not word games. Not rhetoric. Not formulaic/theoretical reframing... I mean REAL morality.

I.e., if you care about morals, raise your voice against torture, raise your voice against corruption and greed and hypocrisy, raise your voice against bullying, raise your voice against lies, raise your voice against abuses that are done in the name of religion OR in the name of secularism.

BUT if you really don't care about morals, if you really don't give a crap about good or evil, if you really aren't spiritual, then do everyone a favor and stand aside while me and Democrats like me wag our fingers right back at the finger-wagging religious right and the pretentious false patriots.

PLEASE don't get in our way by waving your own fingers if you don't mean anything moral by it, if you really don't think there is any firm moral position against torture, or if you are so relativist that you really don't think there is a REAL human right to be free from rape and torture.

I.e., Sam Harris, thanks but no thanks. Your broken middle finger can't wave the way mine flags the fundies...

For the sake of the nation, seriously.

And if need be I can fight back too. I don't want anymore war crimes torture ,rape,corruption or abuse.

No more by-standing,no more enabling,no more excuses.
I will call evil what it is ,evil.
And I don't care if it sounds'religious' I don't care about atheistic purity some things are so WRONG they are well,evil...There is no word with enough of a psychological punch to describe the harm of such wrongs like rape or war crimes done against human beings. I think strong language IS required for describing the seriousness of some acts... Evil is called evil because of what it IS,and religion has got NOTHING to do with it..Evil describes.

but I did not realize just how much of a scumbucket he really is.



His "argument" basically seems to be that since horrible things happen in war, that we should simply abandon all ethical standards wholesale. You're absolutely right that with views like his, he has no place wagging his finger at anyone else.

His book "End of Faith" would have been far more interesting, without his equivocation about human rights as regards torture.

He is similar to Alan Dershowitz on the issue.

In the name of being critical, reflective, and reasonable, they both throw out the idea of a universal human right to be free from torture.

Without disregarding the difficulties and complexities of proving an ethical position or working out details for the sake of philosophy or law, there are some "truths that are self-evident" -- to quote the Declaration of Independence.

The Declaration of Independence doesn't establish our Republic, the Constitution does, but there is a Bill of Rights, and the logic of checks and balances is to try to prevent the government from getting too much power and abusing it.

To equivocate on torture, what's left of any civil or human rights if we don't get that one right? I mean, if there is ANYTHING we can agree on ethically, it should be that.

That is isn't, is a great ethical and moral failure.

their rights record

It's just mental gymnastics.

He imagines he is building a case for something but is simply rationalizing a presumed conclusion.

The characteristics are -- far too many words for the points he tries to make; use of irrational propositions; conflation of dissimilar concepts; and unnecessarily forced dichotomies.

You don't have to read very far to get the distinct impression that he's just trying to convince himself of something. It is a correct impression.

Try not to let tripe like this provoke you. That's really the only power it has. It doesn't change minds.

--

That it bores people with rationalizations doesn't make it harmless.

Harris and Dershowitz represent a very real moral failure among educated people who appeal to liberals/democrats/moderates far more than Fallwell or Robertson or Scalia do.

The 'left' is not immune to anti-semitism, or to waffling rationalizations on human/civil rights abuses. Sure the 'right' has issues, but so does the 'left'...

I.e., look at Iran and Cuba and Venesuela. The 'right' is ready to use them as whipping boys, they use heavy handed rhetoric, they don't care for accuracy, they excuse their own bad judgment or poor diplomacy or non-existant diplomacy, on other people, and use others as distractions, that all is true. But there are also people on the left who are just as much into truthiness when it comes to the civil/human rights records of Iran, Cuba, and Vensuela, it feels right to defend such countries against big bad U.S., so BS isn't just the best friend of the 'right'...

:eyes:

...Oh, yeah, those happen ALL the fucking time.

Just like the "war on Christmas", right?

But, still, I'd love to hear some examples-- just for fun.

It seems to me that it isn't just religious folkes who engage in bullying. Maybe we should start there.

From there we can expand the focus a bit more. Not all school teachers and officials, for example, really understand what is acceptable/inacceptable, and sometimes over-react either way, or are inconsistant either way.

From there we could go to Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot, of course.

But my point, here, was that there was a moral argument against the religious right, and that some people are not helping deal with making a moral challenge against the right.

to take exception to the wording used here, first you imply that some see religion as the cause of bullying, then extend this to the non-religious, which has the implication that non-theism is a causal factor, though I am not saying this was your intent, might I suggest some small re-adjustment of the wording to prevent misunderstandings/flamewars, personally I would suggest "Given that placement into defined groups is the seat of bullying, religion is not a causal factor (in any other way than it can be used to place people into groups, just like any belief system) in bullying, it is extremely unlikely that only those who are religious bully" a bit wordy but certainly covers all ground.

Unless you were implying that that poster was a bully, in which case I should declare that his point was valid when viewed as a statement that abuses done by the non-religious were not in the name of that abscence of belief.

"spiritual" to be moral? (Like we haven't heard that pantload, before)

Cuz it sure sounds that way, from your OP.

if you really aren't spiritual, then do everyone a favor and stand aside

Oh, yeah- I'm "bullying" because you decided it was time for another subtle "lets bash the atheists and secularists" thread (well, it has been almost a week, so I suppose we're due) and I called Bullshit on it.

:eyes:, again.

And leaving aside the hackneyed "Atheists are responsible for Pol Pot", lets have some current, local examples of whatever the hell you're talking about - you know, with the "School teachers and officials" waging secular war on the poor persecuted religious in this country.

The issues and challenges I raise, and any resulting thinking that happens, are a different matter, whether I'm being a blowhard or whether I'm making sense or whatever.

I think there needs to be a SERIOUS challenge to the religious right. I think secularists, atheists, AND religious people, are going to be a part of it.

I think the problems with religion in politics are serious enough to take a VERY critical look at the language and practice of religion in politics, including re-examining the tactics, strategy, lingo, and attitudes used from the left to counter the religious right.

The issues I'm raising, have to do with the fact that right wing religionists don't see that it's immoral to let Bush and Rummy off without accountability, as they torture people.

If it was only religious people who were justifying torture, if it wasn't also pragmatic atheists, secular radicals, etc., then I'd be able ot focus more on the right wing religious nuts.

There are plenty of spiritual people, religious people, who are Democrats, or who are moderates or independents, who COULD be raising more of a moral fight against the religious right.

I'd simply prefer if atheists like Sam Harris, and Stalinists, etc., would stay out of OUR way, and I'd hope they'd have the decency not to PRETEND to be concerned about morality if it is really just a word game or strategy for them. For some it is. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, then do you see my concern?

The "answer" to religion in politics is the same as the answer to CO2 in the atmosphere. There's too damn much of it, already.

Promote secularism, tolerance, and a reasonable amount of looking out for your neighbors while simultaneously minding your own business as MORAL values, patiently explain to people that you don't have to believe in any particular strain of religion to understand that "we're all in it together" and "I am you as you are me as you are he as we are all together", and most importantly "what's inside of my head doesn't need to dictate YOUR life"-- and we'll all do a lot better.

You're going after the "relativists", when they're clearly not the PROBLEM on this planet right now.

people so relativistic that they have an impact, are you? Or are you just pointing out someone saying something a bit wierd?

And I also hope that if the former were true, you were not ascribing moral relativism to the atheists, especially not to this extent.

That said, I must say that Sam Harris seems to be way off the mark there. Way off any mark, he really has not given the matter that much thought.

they excuse/justify war crimes, torture, civil and human rights abuses, etc.

Just about every time Hannity or O'Riley complain about 'moral equivalence' they are distracting people from their own right wing relativism that says that torture, massacre, lack of accountability, etc., are ok for practical reasons, or in the context of the situation, etc.

No one calls them on it. Especially people on the left who themselves AGREE in such slippery and pragmatic notions of morality themselves.

Those of us who believe that torture is evil, should speak out, and those who think such language is unenlightened for calling things evil, should step asside, because they are alienating those independent, moderate, and confused swing voters who otherwise are scratching their heads wondering if any political movement really cares about morality or not.

They just SAY they do, when it's to their advantage. As soon as it's to their advantage to ignore morality, they jump at it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1344652

A lot of politics is persuasion. Persuasion isn't always honest or fair or principled, that's for sure.

I don't politically support everyone I agree with on solutions, when their rhetoric is manipulative or their arguments are based in seriously flawed arguments that I feel hurt the country.

The Republicans are hurting the country right now enough as it is. Democrats know how to hurt the country, too, I don't want them to have every branch of government either, checks and balances are a good thing precisely because of the arrogance of power, the manipulations of rhetoric, as used by people with unchecked power.