[MD] Christian Ethics and U.S. Law

[pholden at davtv.com]

Quoting Arlo Bensinger <ajb102 at psu.edu>:


> [Arlo]
> That's just a dodge, Platt. Let's run through it step-by-step.
> 
> 1. You proposed that our law is/should be based on "Christian ethics".

No. I said our ethics based on Christian principles and that the
Founding Fathers were believers in God and were influenced in their
deliberations by our Christian heritage.

> 2. You also propose to select only minor passages out from this ethical system.

I propose to select the best from any ethical system, including the Indian
ethical system you admire so much.

> 3. At that point you no longer have a "Christian ethic" foundation, 
> but one of "reason", with God tossed in as authority.

Not reason, but valuation which may or may not meet the criteria of reason. 

> [Arlo previously]
> Jesus told people to do Good works, regardless of the "faith" or 
> social position of the recipient. But still left God's Grace only for 
> those who converted.
> 
> [Platt]
> Show where he said that in the Bible after you explain what "God's 
> grace" means.
> 
> [Arlo]
> The parable of the Samaritan. "God's Grace" would be "getting into 
> Heaven". God did not do favors for infidels, only for the flock.

I instinctively find that of low value. Like I said -- take the best and
leave the rest.

> [Platt]
> I never said the Founding Fathers were Gods. Take about distortion.
> 
> [Arlo]
> I said you deify them in the way you refer to them. In capital 
> letters, and with a sense that because "they" did it this lends 
> itself an authority of its own. You complained when I compared the 
> "Founders" to football players. Heaven forbid the Great and Glorious 
> Founders get compared to lowly football players. But never mind, my 
> point is only that I don't give a hoot what "the Founders" said or 
> did.

I know you don't. That's obvious. You prefer Marx. 


> What I care about is right here, right now. And to that effect 
> they did a lot of good things, some amazingly good things (such as 
> granting us all the freedoms, based in reason, that we enjoy). But 
> they got some things wrong, that we are slowly correcting over time 
> (like slavery). In the end, they were just people like you and I. 
> That's all I'm saying.

Well, not just like me. I don't have the ego to think I could have put
together a nation like they did.

> [Platt]
> According to you, laws are just metaphors, and there is no such thing 
> as "literal truth."
> 
> [Arlo]
> "Laws" are social contracts we agree to live by so that we can draw 
> some betterness than we would without. It is a reasoned position. I 
> agree not to kill because I do not want to be killed. I agree to stay 
> off your property in the hopes that I can procure my own little 
> private island. I drive 55 (er, mostly) because I want others to 
> drive safely. I do these things not because a "God" said so, but 
> because reason alone tells me it is a better social arrangement.

All metaphors. When does a metaphor meet the road?

> [Arlo had said]
> Without property ownership, there is no "master" as no one 
> own  property. You are talking about "controlled ownership", not an 
> abolition of property ownership altogether.
> 
> [Platt]
> Of course I'm not talking about abolishing property ownership 
> altogether, Who is besides Marx and perhaps a few other dinosaurs?
> 
> [Arlo]
> Your condemnation of Marx's decree to abolish private property rested 
> on the grounds that without property we are slaves to our master's. 
> So of course we are talking about abolishing private property 
> outright (if we are talking about Marx).

Maybe you are proposing abolishing private property and living like 
the Indians. But I'm not. To abolish private property is to make us all
slaves to the state.

> [Platt previously]
> And where are the Indians today?
> 
> [Arlo then]
> Exterminated in large part and forced to live in otherwise unwanted land.
> 
> [Platt]
> So maybe their social system, whatever it was, wasn't so hot after all.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Power and the ability to kill off others does not make one "hot".

To be able to defend one's life is.

> [Platt]
> Goodness knows they had all the resources to develop a civilization 
> equivalent to the  Europeans.
> 
> [Arlo]
> Sure they did, but they did not see the world as a resource in this 
> regard. They were, as Pirsig points out, non-S/O dominant. Pirsig 
> wasn't so dismissive of this, saying, "And now he began to see for 
> the first time the unbelievable magnitude of what man, when he gained 
> power to understand and rule the world in terms of dialectic truths, 
> had lost. He had built empires of scientific capability to manipulate 
> the phenomena of nature into enormous manifestations of his own 
> dreams of power and wealth...but for this he had exchanged an empire 
> of understanding of equal magnitude: an understanding of what it is 
> to be a part of the world, and not an enemy of it."

Pirsig says the main problem with the modern world is that the reason it uses,
based on S/O logic, has a defect in it. It has no place for values. Thus,
your appeals to reason are part of the problem.

> [Arlo]
> I consider the Amerindians, as did Pirsig, to be a people not caught 
> up in S/O dualism. They "got it right".

As I said, for a group that "got it right" they must have blown it, considering
where they are today. 

> [Platt]
> Keep in mind that Indian tribes also fought one another and devised 
> exquisite forms of torture, not to mention the practice of scalping.
> 
> [Arlo]
> So it seems the Zen Buddhists are the only ones worthy of our total admiration.

Don't think so. Some of them in Viet Nam set fire to themselves. Not my
cup of tea.




-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/