|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: The Loss of the Moral High Ground
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
On the wealth issue, the Bennett family income was 2000 pounds/year. However both they and Darcy would have produced a lot of stuff (home farms for almost all their food) that they consumed which would not have counted as income and makes it difficult to compare their wealth to that of merchants or industrialists who did not have land.
On the current moral exemplars who are Christian, I think Desmond Tutu is still widely respected.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
A simple point. Being a sore loser (rather than gracious in defeat) always leads to some loss of the moral high ground.
There were some early posts suggesting the margin for victory in the latest US election was "very small". As the final count (absentee ballots etc) approaches completion, I see (Wikipedia) that the winning margin is now 3%. That's not very small.
It hasn't stopped a significant number signing petitions to secede. I'm sure many of them think they occupy the high ground and see themselves as defending the American Way Of Life.
But they just look like sore losers; increasingly so. Another form of self-undermining.
[ 18. November 2012, 08:23: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Justinian, superb, your parentheses say it all.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
So, now, the Chritian Right is proclaiming that Obama, and apparently all blacks, are not Christian
quote:
Ninety-three percent of African Americans voted for Obama in this election. Where are the Christians? Where are those who choose candidates based on the content of his or her character?
Apparently, being a member of a "mainstream" church or an African Baptist church is no longer being a Christian.
Voting for some sort of values that aren't exactly those promulgated by the Guardians of Authority of Scripture (self-appointed) make sone NOT A CHRISTIAN.
Is there ANY basis to this claim, other than pure racism?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
Horseman Bree asks:
quote:
Is there ANY basis to this claim, other than pure racism?
Based on what I've learned from many discussions with my fellow citizens -- discussions in which I sometimes allow the other person to think I am neutral on political matters -- race-based thinking and racial bias play a bigger role in current U.S. politics than Europeans might imagine. Certainly, it's more in the open since we elected our first black President.
On the other hand, don't underestimate the across-the-board fanaticism of those on the far right. The religious right is only part of the story, although probably the most militant. The entire group expresses great pride in their commitment to what they imagine to be the the "moral high ground."
Here's an example of the Far Right thinking, circa November 18, 2012. It comes, not from some backwoods journal, but from the Letters column to the NY Times, of all places. (The writer comes from Paso Robles, California.)
quote:
Some people are saying we “conservatives” should move to the left if we want to win elections. That is not an option! I would rather see the G.O.P. lose every election than become “light Democrats.”
Some of us feel that we will have to answer to a “higher power,” so we will not embrace abortion, amnesty for illegal immigrants, socialized medicine and cuts to our military to pay for entitlements. The liberal media have done a great job making half of our citizens believe that America is the problem.
So many of the demonizing trigger words are in that letter. "Abortion." "Amnesty." "Socialism." "Entitlements." "Liberal media."
You don't need racism to explain the American Far Right, including the Religious Right. But an indirectly stated racism racism does seem to be one of the glues that holds things together.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Why does a commitment to militarism spring from conservatism?...especially when the libertarian streak that runs through conservatism implies NOT trying to force people to do stuff?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
quote:
Why does a commitment to militarism spring from conservatism?...especially when the libertarian streak that runs through conservatism implies NOT trying to force people to do stuff?
The term "conservative," like the term "liberal," mean very different things in the U.S. from what is usual elsewhere.
Mainstream "conservatism" in the U.S. tends to be suspicious of government, and resistant to taxation, EXCEPT in the case of spending on the military (and law enforcement). "God and country" conservatives are not all that different in the U.S. and the U.K., on that particular issue at least.
Libertarians differ from most Republican conservatives in a number of ways. In the post-election analyses, you frequently heard "I'm a social libertarian but an economic conservative." Ron Paul, the candidate of choice of Libertarians, has not been a supporter of the U.S.'s ventures in Iraq and Afghanistan. Probably because of this, he was, According to the NY Times, the preferred 2012 presidential candidate of active servicemen and women, as measured by campaign contributions. Paul did not endorse Romney, by the way.
[ 18. November 2012, 20:48: Message edited by: roybart ]
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally quoted by roybart:
"Some people are saying we “conservatives” should move to the left if we want to win elections. That is not an option! I would rather see the G.O.P. lose every election than become “light Democrats.”
Some of us feel that we will have to answer to a “higher power,” so we will not embrace abortion, amnesty for illegal immigrants, socialized medicine and cuts to our military to pay for entitlements. The liberal media have done a great job making half of our citizens believe that America is the problem."
I know I'm a foreigner and can't be expected to understand these things, but I assume 'higher power' is code for God. I can see that a person might have to answer to God for having an abortion or making their living from providing them.
However, for the life of me, I cannot see why God should be angry with and judging those who:-
- give an amnesty for illegal immigrants (sojourners and strangers in the land),
- provide socialized (sic) medicine (if there be any sick among you, is it better to care for them or not to?) or
- want to reduce military expenditure to spend the money saved on providing for the poor (beating swords into ploughshares).
There may be policy arguments for or against these, but why is advocating or implementing any of them sinful? Why should a person have to answer to God for failing to oppose them? Perhaps I am so blinded and sunk in sin by the iniquity of having received the benefits of our National Health Service for most of my life, but I cannot see that.
The one cheering thought, is that from our experience here, the more determined a party is to be true to its doctrinaire principles, the less prospect it has of winning elections. Long may that continue.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
I can't understand this point of view either, Enoch. The only odd thing was to find it expressed so in such a bald and straightforward manner in a publication like the NY Times.
Like you, I took "higher power" as a kind of code for God. Or for Ayn Rand. Or for both, as in the case of Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential candidate.
[ 18. November 2012, 22:05: Message edited by: roybart ]
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Further to Enoch's well made points.
I'm afraid that letter to the NY Times shows just how much the Luke 4 "gospel of the kingdom" has been swamped by the politicised and privatised agenda of the Right.
And of course it also shows the hold of these ideas on a particular mind. I was reminded of a text from the OT book of Amos.
quote:
You have lifted up the shrine of your king, the pedestal of your idols, the star of your god which you made for yourselves. Therefore I will send you into exile
Or maybe Paul Simon's "Sound of Silence"?
"And the people bowed and prayed to the neon god they made."
I don't doubt the sincerity, but to these eyes across the sea there does seem to be a lot of idolatry mixed in there. And it seems to have dug deep into the fabric of the visible church in the US. That's pretty scary.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
AmyBo
Shipmate
# 15040
|
Posted
As an American on the left, I often read references to entitlements, particularly when coupled with anti-immigrant rhetoric, as blatant racism. Anti-amnesty for illegal immigrants is about not accepting hispanics as Americans, and I jump from that to the entitlement digs (in context of many conversations I've had with social conservatives) being about not giving anything to those damned minorities.
I don't think anyone speaking that way would ever admit, even to themselves, that this is their thinking, but you ask them who gets entitlements and they start describing a black woman in a city having children for the benefits. I know the discussion is much more nuanced than this, but other entitlements don't bother them one bit. I love some of these speakers, but they're bigoted assholes, all.
So as far as I'm concerned I can love the sinner, but hate the sin, to borrow from more of their cannon- and that means that their opinions count for nil, and bigotry on that scale has no moral high ground- they're trying to swim out of the swamp.
[ETA- tie back to OP]
[ 19. November 2012, 01:22: Message edited by: AmyBo ]
Posts: 122 | From: Minnesota | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
roybart
Shipmate
# 17357
|
Posted
I am with you on just about everything you say, AmyBo.
The OP refers to "The Loss of the Moral High Ground" by the Religious Right. There is another side to this. I have been impressed by the number of people who are reclaiming and speaking up about their own version of the moral high ground. This includes people who consider themselves conservative about many things, but who resent the way the conservative label has been hijacked and radically redefined by the Religious Right. It includes those of us who try to live in accordance with a Gospel quite different in tone and emphasis from what we hear from the Religious Right.
Here are three snippets of this resurgent and very different "morality," from the NY Times Letters page today:
quote:
I am a white upper-middle-class married mother of three and a mainline Protestant. In other words, I was Mitt Romney's targeted demographic. Instead, I voted for Barack Obama ... My religious understanding involves healing the sick and feeding the poor, so I support food stamps and Obamacare. As an educated person, I find myself alienated by the anti-woman and anti-science sentiments espoused by the GOP. It's "take back American from the undesirables" message nakedly exploits and encourages peoples prejudices against undocumented immigrants, gays, single mothers, and minorities.
quote:
The tide has turned. ... In this process there has been no infringement of the rights of churchgoers to practice their own theology but confirms that they may not impose their dogma on others.
quote:
The religious right construes its rejection at the polls as a sign of America's rejection of moral values and of our
national decline. The opposite is true.
We have rejected moralism, not morality. We have rejected the premise that sanctimonious preachers can herd our votes by claiming to be on God's chat list. We are evolving to a higher morality of knowledge, compassion, and stewardship.
--------------------
"The consolations of the imaginary are not imaginary consolations."
-- Roger Scruton
Posts: 547 | From: here | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well, I suppose the evolving might eventually arrive somewhere like this.
quote:
44 All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45 They sold property and possessions to give to anyone who had need.
Nah! Far too radical. "Not practical at all. Panders to the feckless. They deserve their poverty .." ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But (with my tongue firmly out of my cheek), those quotes in roybart's post do give us a pretty good idea of how "their own theology" is perceived by folks outside its reach.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Justinian:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I've no doubt James Madison would disagree with you. In 1794 he stood on the floor of the house and said "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."
I can find in NT scripture where I am to expend the money of Mere Nick. I can't find where I'm to advocate the coercive use of power to expend the money of Justinian.
Let's play a game. The game is called "How much is it fair that Justinian pay to upkeep the society he lives in?"
Justinian is a Brit. The GDP per capita of Britain is somewhere between $35,000 and $40,000 per year. Before about 1750AD, the world GDP per capita was around $500 per head and fairly static. I am responsible for almost exactly none of this difference - I am merely lucky enough to live in 21st Century Britain. That difference has nothing to do with my ability or hard work, and everything to do with the society I'm lucky enough to live in, and government and taxes are how society exerts its will and maintains itself.
So a fair tax rate based on the proportion of my income that is luck based vs the proportion that is down to me would be around ($35,000-$500)/$35,000 or 98.6%
Now I'm not advocating a 98.6% tax rate. One of the reasons we do pretty well as a society is that we leave people with personal property so they have something to build on. But I am well aware that more than 95% of my income and wealth are down to the sheer dumb luck of me having been born in Britain in the late 20th Century. I hit the jackpot, and government is how we organise this ridiculous positive sum lottery I won. To not pay for others to be able to win the lottery would be ... ridiculously selfish.
Ok. I'll say that neither I or anyone else I've ever met appears to have had the sheer dumb luck to have been born with a mind more qualified than Justinian's to determine what Justinian does with his stuff.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
The tide has turned. ... In this process there has been no infringement of the rights of churchgoers to practice their own theology but confirms that they may not impose their dogma on others.
. . . But we will impose ours on them.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by roybart:
The tide has turned. ... In this process there has been no infringement of the rights of churchgoers to practice their own theology but confirms that they may not impose their dogma on others.
. . . But we will impose ours on them.
Really? What morality are you being forced to follow now that you weren't before?
Note before you answer that other people being allowed to do something doesn't change what you can and can't do one tiny bit.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Really? What morality are you being forced to follow now that you weren't before?
part of it is espoused by the one who said
quote:
My religious understanding involves healing the sick and feeding the poor, so I support food stamps and Obamacare.
It's the same religion-based pushiness that the person was complaining about earlier.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Really? What morality are you being forced to follow now that you weren't before?
part of it is espoused by the one who said
quote:
My religious understanding involves healing the sick and feeding the poor, so I support food stamps and Obamacare.
It's the same religion-based pushiness that the person was complaining about earlier.
So your religion requires the poor to starve and the sick to die in the streets? A rather unusual creed, that.
There is a big difference between requiring that people have access to basic necessities and that people not be allowed access to them. If the person given the access objects to having these needs met, [s]he can refuse the offer. But there is no comparable free choice when you withhold such necessities. There is no moral symmetry here at all.
--Tom Clune
[ 20. November 2012, 18:24: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
So your religion requires the poor to starve and the sick to die in the streets? A rather unusual creed, that.
And is as accurate a description as saying that your creed requires abortion and buggery.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
So your religion requires the poor to starve and the sick to die in the streets? A rather unusual creed, that.
And is as accurate a description as saying that your creed requires abortion and buggery.
Perhaps you'll eventually get around to reading the rest of my post, which explains why this is complete nonsense.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
So your religion requires the poor to starve and the sick to die in the streets? A rather unusual creed, that.
And is as accurate a description as saying that your creed requires abortion and buggery.
Perhaps you'll eventually get around to reading the rest of my post, which explains why this is complete nonsense.
--Tom Clune
The complete nonsense is your posting what you did. You and your political opponents are doing the exact same thing by putting on Jesus t-shirts and trying to grab the reigns of power so you can force others into doing stuff because you fear you lack the ability to persuade.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Boys, boys, boys. You are two sides of the same foundationalist coin.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Boys, boys, boys. You are two sides of the same foundationalist coin.
Well, I called the board of elections here in my county a while ago and asked them how to unregister.
I've begun reading some folks regarded as Christian anarchists and can't seem to come up with refutation. It appears we Christians are to persuade, not coerce, and it seems we cross that line when we step into the voting booth. Unless you can find me someone who says that happiness and joy eluded them until they discovered politics I'm off to pound sand.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
It's hard accepting the bottom line of Christ I know Mere Nick.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's hard accepting the bottom line of Christ I know Mere Nick.
I hope that's what I'm really doing, Martin.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Nick. For some reason the rich young man comes to mind. Don't go. We need each other. You and tclune need each other. Left and right need each other, to include each other.
All the privileges we have we got and get from the poor. We owe them EVERYTHING.
That humanists have to shame us in to giving by the coercion of legislation is a terrible indictment.
I have great hope for you in that you see that the suicide machine is insane in its military expenditure trying to forlornly hold what it has.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Mere Nick: quote:
My religious understanding involves healing the sick and feeding the poor, so I support food stamps and Obamacare.
It's the same religion-based pushiness that the person was complaining about earlier.
I find this rule helpful: "It's no problem if your political convictions are inspired by your religion, but in the political arena you'll have to defend them using secular arguments."
For example, I believe in supporting the homeless, and this belief is to a large degree inspired by my religion. But I also have good secular arguments of why supporting the homeless is ultimately good for my country. I will defend my position with these secular arguments, and people can agree with them or not. If I manage to convince people using secular arguments, it's not 'religion-based pushiness'.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But, if you see all taxation as "the gummint stealing my dollars and giving them to someone else", then ANY suggestion of giving is seen as "pushiness"...
"And it is worse if the Christians agree, because we are supposed to be raised to prosperity by our Christianness, so those scroungers should be converted and become prosperous like us"
Except that that whole sentence bears no relation to any Christian or secular relaity that one can define.
Or have I missed something along the way? I'm OK with discussing how best to serve the poor/widowed/orphan/stranger, but the discussion shouldn't be done throwing most Christian/Biblical teaching out the window, preaching the exact opposite, and then claiming to be Christian anyway.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
It seems to me that all (or perhaps almost all) government spending is redistributive. My tax dollars aren't handed back to me, dollar for dollar. They go to soldiers, teachers, police, and a long list of other people including the poor, who are well down the list.
I'm not happy with the way some of my tax dollars are spent, but I think it's silly to argue that I don't like my tax dollars being given to someone else. That's necessarily going to happen in order to have a functioning government that provides for the general welfare of its citizens.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
