Tuesday, March 11, 2008

The irony hardly gets richer

This post will consist of 2 parts, each on irony.

Irony #1 - See if you can pick out the irony in the following statements from the Jolly Nihilist:

-I argue that, because our species is ignorant of moral truth—or, at the least, no moral code has been proved correct—it is incoherent for any individual’s moral opinions to be inflicted upon other individuals.

-As such, in the comment box, I rail against moral authoritarianism, taking both Islamofascists and Christofascists to task for their attempts to inflict their arbitrary views on others.

-(Comparing perception of morality with perception of colors) In the face of factual ignorance, everybody should be entitled to create an opinion vis-à-vis best color.

-...for both Christofascists and Islamofascists, there is an assumption that they have a right to inflict their arbitrary moral opinions on those around them.


Irony #2 (this one might be a little tougher) -

-Rhology took exception to the comparison, and wrote the following:
“Yeah, the biggest difference might be found in the fact that Christians don't strap bombs to their bodies to blow other people and themselves up. But that's probably just a piddling, minor issue.”...Of course, Rhology, you must recognize that my comparison was not of methods but of mindset.

-If you, Rhology, as a Christian, find sex toys to be immoral, you have every right never to buy or use them. However, if other people find them morally acceptable—and, dare I say, pleasurable—they would be allowed their (in your mind) “deviance.”



LEGEND:

#1 - The JN would inflict his moral views on the rest of us, just as he says we should not do. In making the very statement that one should not inflict one's moral views on another, he does the same. As James White says, "Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument".

#2 - He challenges my comparison between "Christian" violence and jihadist suicide bombers with an illustration of a law in Alabama that prohibits the sale of sex toys.
I love it - the West, for all its faults, faces an enemy that wants to impose sharia law on all people. It wants women to walk 10 steps behind men, never to show their faces in public, to be prohibited from shaking hands with men, to be worth 1/2 of a man with respect to lawful testimony in court. It wants to charge a heavy tax on/kill those who will not convert to Islam. It wants to behead those who insult Islam or Mohammed. Virtually all of its earliest expansion, both under Mohammed and after him, came through military activity and forced conversions, to the point that all of the Iberian Peninsula, much of France, all of the Balkans, up to Vienna, was taken and held by Muslim forces. The number of men AND WOMEN who strap bombs to themselves every year to blow up civilians and children is almost too numerous to consider. And the JN is concerned about the imposition of a few laws banning the sale of sex toys?

Further, I specified even further a big difference between jihadist violence and Christian violence in response to a commenter's mentioning abortion-related violence.
The JN, in his post, goes on and on about "the church" committing the Inquisition and Witch Trials and such. It's hard to imagine how he could be so uninformed as to think there could be any connection beyond a simple name (ie, they were part of the "Christian church" and I am part of the the Christian church) between my position and that of medieval Roman Catholics. Apparently he missed the multiple posts I've written against the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions and the fact that I'm a contributor at Beggars All Reformation Apologetics, which would be hard to confuse with medieval Roman Catholicism.
Anyone can claim to "clutch the Bible" as JN puts it. "Who follows its teachings?" is a far better question for two reasons:
1) You're making a claim that the Bible teaches such.
2) You're talking to a guy who claims to follow the Bible in everythg it teaches.

Given all this, perhaps the JN could enlighten us as to how he comes to these conclusions:

-If torture and murder cannot be laid at the Bible’s figurative feet, that tome certainly can be said to have inspired some of this.

-“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” is just begging for trouble, especially when there are nonconformists, heretics and ugly crones about.

Ie. What is the context of this command? To whom was it given? When? What connection does that have to the New Testament church, of which I am a part?

The JN is always an interesting guy; I'm very interested to see the depths of his understanding here.

9 comments:

Kyle said...

"Christofascists" is a nasty mischaracterization of people like Rhology and the masses of Christ following Americans. Men and women who believe that life, sex, and children are gifts from God and who work to promote the common good by protecting the sanctity of each are nothing like fascists. This type of donkey dust deserves scorn. And now I will scorn it. Nanny, nanny, boo, boo < end scorn >. Seriously though, it is a pity when labels become the substitute for substance. The People in America impose their morailty on society because without any morality society turns into a cesspool of chaos, and because God said so (reference the Bible). The question is not whether the People should impose morality but WHOSE morality should they impose.

Rhology has brought to light in multiple posts the folly of claiming that "imposing morality" is wrong (notice how the JN tried to dodge the obvious counter argument by saying it is incoherent, at least he is trying). It might be incoherent if the JN's worldview is true but it is essential in the world Christ created to establish norms of personal conduct and to enforce them through government where necessary.

The JN may have noticed that Christ's followers are not willing to grant that his view is the right one or that he even has the grounds to question the authority by which God declared those norms in his Word. Of course this makes the JN and others who hate God's authority pretty irritated. But, the difference between those who love God and his word and those who hate God is further illustrated by the JN who thinks he is exposing Christianity when all he exposes is himself and aids the Christian cause.

JN, may Jesus reveal himself to you and humble you to see the grace that you need like he has done for the rest of his followers.

John Morales said...

Kyle, you write

The People in America impose their morailty on society because without any morality society turns into a cesspool of chaos, and because God said so (reference the Bible). The question is not whether the People should impose morality but WHOSE morality should they impose.

I thought that the United States of America was a federal constitutional republic based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, where the state imposes not morality but the rule of law.

Theocratic states do impose morality, such as Saudi Arabia, but other states impose laws.

If you had your way, would US laws be based on the Bible, and would sins be classed as crimes? Do you have a problem with the First Amendment of your Constitution?

John Morales said...

Exodus 22:18 (King James Version): Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

You ask: What connection does that have to the New Testament church, of which I am a part?
Well, it's part of the Bible on which you claim your morality is founded upon and the commands of which you obey.

I refer to your post Primer on the Bible's infallibility where you write Now, given theism, why is the Bible infallible? where you provide 9 reasons, amongst them 2) The Bible claims itself to be breathed out by God, and on theism, God is perfect and omniscient, does not make mistakes and 7) The Bible accurately describes reality, including history as verified by archæological study.

Rhology, do you believe witches exist? If not, can you explain why it's one of the dicta in the Bible*?

*(Beginning in Exodus 20 And God spake all these words, saying: followed by 25 dicta, followed by 36 more in Ex. 21, and 31 more in Ex.22, and 33 more in Ex. 23. Phew!)

The Jolly Nihilist said...

Rhology,

You have been answered.

Thanks for the reply!

The Jolly Nihilist said...

By the way, Rhology, why am I excluded from the Wall of Shame?

Is my nihilism not shameful? :)

Kyle said...

John Morales says: "I thought that the United States of America was a federal constitutional republic based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, where the state imposes not morality but the rule of law."

The foundation of law is morality. So some immoral things are made unlawful in just societies: things like theft, murder, rape, bribery, child abuse, etc. The basis of the morals that undergird our legal system ought to be understood so that our laws are not arbitrary. The basis in the US is the Judeo-Christian worldview.

John Morales says - "If you had your way, would US laws be based on the Bible..."

Many US laws are based on the moral principles in the bible. I think our laws should reflect the absolute standards of behavior in the bible. I don't think that all American's should be forced to accept Christian doctrine, but since most Americans are Christian, it is democratic for us to use biblical standards for criminal behavior. Unlike ancient Israel, the US is not a Theocracy, with God as its King. Therefore, religious and ceremonial laws should not be imposed since we are not ancient Jews living in Israel. The principles of civil laws are an excellent guide for how we should impose punishments and legislate behavior.

"and would sins be classed as crimes? Do you have a problem with the First Amendment of your Constitution?"

Some sinful behaviors are criminal and others are not. Some examples of criminal sins are theft, rape, murder, battery, assault, negligence, vandalism, etc. Personal ethical behaviors are not criminal even though sinful such as gossip, slander, lying (unless under oath), blasphemy, unbelief, cursing, fornication, lust, greed, boasting, etc.

The government cannot and should not legislate religious matters of conscience. No one should be forced to believe a particular religious truth. In America, most people believe that Christian morality is the proper way to behave and we want to protect the public square so that children are not flooded with adult perversions We want a safe environment for children to develop. Adults are free to behave as they wish but the will of the People determines behavior in public such as standards of decency, crude language, etc.

Hope that makes it clear.

John Morales said...

Kyle, if I understand you, you're saying the rule of law is functionally equivalent to the rule of morality. You make a number of points:

1: the foundation of law is morality, implying that the purpose of law is to enforce morality.
2: you think that, though "religious and ceremonial laws should not be imposed", your laws should "reflect the absolute standards of behavior in the bible".
3: some sins are criminal and some aren't.
4: the will of the People determines behavior in public, but adults are free to behave as they wish.

I respond:
1: the foundation of law is traditional rules for social interaction, and its purpose is the management of a society (which admittedly, boils down to enforcing group morality).
2: !
3: Fair enough. I should've asked "would sins be classed as unlawful?"
4: That seems contradictory (as does 2).

Out of interest, since you think democracies should impose laws based on the majority's religious morality, do you think Japan, for example, should impose laws based on Buddhism and Shintō?

Kyle said...

John Morales said (in quotes)

"Kyle, if I understand you, you're saying the rule of law is functionally equivalent to the rule of morality. You make a number of points:"

Basically. But there are clear distinctions between duty to God and civil responsibilities as I have poorly tried to explain. Gov't should not legislate the first.

"2: you think that, though "religious and ceremonial laws should not be imposed", your laws should "reflect the absolute standards of behavior in the bible.

2: !"

I will try to be more clear.

2: The laws should reflect the absolute standards of behavior in the bible with regard to the value of human life, justice to the individual, right to own personal property, and should encourage personal goodness.

"4: the will of the People determines behavior in public, but adults are free to behave as they wish.

4: That seems contradictory (as does 2)."

People should be free to worship (or not) however they choose and to live in accord with their own conscience. In their private lives they can do whatever they want unless it is criminal behavior as described in my previous comment. In public, our right to pursue our own happiness has boundaries where others' rights begin. One of those boundaries is the community's sense of decency (which varies with time, geography, culture, history, etc). The People's morals determine common decency (e.g. In the US it is indecent and therefore unlawful to urinate on a sidewalk. On the other hand, when in India, watch your step! :) ) If there is a particular law you think is unfairly restricting your freedom by the community's morals, then I will be glad to look at it on an individual basis. Rhology is going to start charging me rent for all the comment space I am taking up.

"Out of interest, since you think democracies should impose laws based on the majority's religious morality, do you think Japan, for example, should impose laws based on Buddhism and Shintō?"

With the distinctions I made above I think it may be appropriate in some cases for Buddhist or Shinto societies to restrict certain behaviors which offend the common decency. Though freedom of religious expression should not be limited for others. Can you think of any particular example of a behavior either of those groups would want to restrict? It is easier to deal with examples.

John Morales said...

Thanks for the clarification, Kyle.

Based on your responses, I classify you as a soft Dominionist*, not a "Christofascist".

... I think it may be appropriate in some cases for Buddhist or Shinto societies to restrict certain behaviors which offend the common decency ... Can you think of any particular example of a behavior either of those groups would want to restrict?

No, because I don't know enough about their tenets. However, this indicates your views are coherent and not particularly intolerant.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionist#Soft_dominionism_.28Christian_nationalism.29