Deliver us from Democrats

Mesquite - Can you give me an example of grey-scale morality that does not simply devolve to no moral code at all?

0 Replies

Scrat writes:

Quote:

Actually, I would argue that (liberal political theology) is not difficult to define, it's just difficult to support, once defined. (See Sowell quote, below.)

_________________
"A careful definition of words would destroy half the agenda of the political left and scrutinizing evidence would destroy the other half." - Thomas Sowell

I thought about that for awhile before responding. And I respectfully disagree. I think if liberal political theology was easily defined, then liberals and liberal radio talk show, etc. would use it. And I think then that their rhetoric would be interesting and could set the framework for constructive debate. And they would then get sufficient listeners and advertisers to be profitable.

I think, however, that very few liberals fully understand or are accurate in the beliefs they hold. The very few who do understand are the ones I respect and listen to because I can learn from them even though they and I have real and fundamental differences in philosophy.

The rest of the liberals cannot explain why they believe what they believe other than within the framework that conservatives/Republicans/George W. Bush, etc. are wrong, bad, incompetent, uncaring, greedy, etc. etc. etc. and they are against anything and everybody conservative. Little of substance is offered to think about and ponder. This is what gets tedious and tiresome even for those listeners who agree with them. Channels/stations are switched and profits decline to the point the program has to go off the air. The only thing keeping NPR on the air is its substantial government subsidy. It lost its listener base many years ago. Even liberals find it boring.

(And yes, conservatives also do their share of liberal-bashing, but conservatives can usually define their beliefs without referencing liberalism. Liberals have a much tougher time defining their beliefs without referencing conservatism.)

The other factor I haven't seen discussed in this forum is the breakdown of conservative vs liberal. Woefully, too many Americans are informed only by the media, message boards, and each other. Nevertheless, when the terms liberal and conservative are omitted and Americans are tested on their opinions on individual subjects and issues, a vast majority of Americans actually tilt conservative in what they do think and believe. It is their negative opinion of conservatives that makes them think they are liberal. That also helps explain the success of conservative radio and TV, but that is probably another subject.

(Even having said that I adore Thomas Sowell and would love to have coffee and chat with him about this very subject.)

0 Replies

And Mesquite, you characterized me as 'having a ball' bashing liberals in my post. Here we have the difference in perception. I was very careful NOT to bash anybody in my post but give the most objective assessment that I could from my point of view. I didn't say liberals were bad or stupid; I didn't use any uncomplimentary adjectives. Yet you saw it as bashing. I honestly then don't know how we can have a constructive discussion re the merits of liberal vs conservative talk radio, media, etc.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

Mesquite - Can you give me an example of grey-scale morality that does not simply devolve to no moral code at all?

Not unless you can tell me how using a black and white moral code drawn from the old testament can hold more authority than any number of other codes in that book that civilized society no longer can tolerate.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And Mesquite, you characterized me as 'having a ball' bashing liberals in my post. Here we have the difference in perception. I was very careful NOT to bash anybody in my post but give the most objective assessment that I could from my point of view. I didn't say liberals were bad or stupid; I didn't use any uncomplimentary adjectives. Yet you saw it as bashing. I honestly then don't know how we can have a constructive discussion re the merits of liberal vs conservative talk radio, media, etc.

for review here is the post.

Foxfyre wrote:

The reason liberal radio has such a tough time of it is that liberal political theology is so difficult to define.

I think one of the reasons liberals despise conservatives is because many conservatives are so certain about the convictions they hold and can explain why they hold them--this is even apart from the political propaganda that conservatives hate free speech, want the poor to stay poor, attack human rights, are heartless, mean spirited, selfish, greedy, money-grubbing, destroyers of the environment, etc. etc. etc. yadda yadda.

Liberals I think are uncomfortable with absolutes. Nobody can be 'as sure' about things as conservatives purport to be. As a result, liberal radio quickly dissolves into conservative bashing with little or nothing to support why their position is superior. And that makes it boring. And that loses it listeners. And that costs it advertisers. So the liberal talk show goes away.

All the liberals have to do to break the conservative 'advantage' is to put something that is more interesting, positive, and entertaining out there.

It looked to me as though you were applying stereotyping, but on second thought maybe all you were trying to get across is that liberals have a tendency to be able to apply critical thinking skills.

0 Replies

I sort of cringe at the term "liberal theology." I do think it is indicative of how some on the far right view politics as an extension of thier faith, however. I find it troubling.

0 Replies

We all have our gods, hobitbob. And when a political viewpoint is lauded as the right and righteous path and/or another political viewpoint is denounced as the personification of all that wrong and evil, 'theology' works for me.

I will take your point to heart, however, and will try to revert to 'ideology' which is the more correct term.

And Mesquite, I actually think few do critical thinking about why they support a particular political ideology. I have the greatest regard for those who in fact do. Most, however, think intelligent argument is to overtly or by implication insult the message and/or the messenger or the particular style of the messenger. Only a few are able to demonstrate objectivity, logic, and intellectual honesty when expressing their point of view. This I think is unfortunate.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

We all have our gods, hobitbob. And when a political viewpoint is lauded as the right and righteous path and/or another political viewpoint is denounced as the personification of all that wrong and evil, 'theology' works for me.

But you make the mistake of implying that "liberals" assert this, and we don't. It is pretty much only the Christian Fundamentalists who do this, and to be blunt, we don't think like you do!

Quote:

I will take your point to heart, however, and will try to revert to 'ideology' which is the more correct term.

Whatever.

Quote:

And Mesquite, I actually think few do critical thinking about why they support a particular political ideology. I have the greatest regard for those who in fact do. Most, however, think intelligent argument is to overtly or by implication insult the message and/or the messenger or the particular style of the messenger. Only a few are able to demonstrate objectivity, logic, and intellectual honesty when expressing their point of view. This I think is unfortunate.

Foxy, as many others here have been reminded repeatedly, disagreeing with you is not the same as insulting you. I'm sorry that you seem to think that it is.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Scrat wrote:
Mesquite - Can you give me an example of grey-scale morality that does not simply devolve to no moral code at all?

Not unless you can tell me how using a black and white moral code drawn from the old testament can hold more authority than any number of other codes in that book that civilized society no longer can tolerate.

Okay, how about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? I'd call that pretty black and white. Are you claiming that it should hold no weight because of whence it is derived?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Mesquite - Can you give me an example of grey-scale morality that does not simply devolve to no moral code at all?

Not unless you can tell me how using a black and white moral code drawn from the old testament can hold more authority than any number of other codes in that book that civilized society no longer can tolerate.

Okay, how about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? I'd call that pretty black and white. Are you claiming that it should hold no weight because of whence it is derived?

Err..war...Iraq...."God told me to attack Afganistan and Iraq,"....etc..... Wink

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

And Mesquite, I actually think few do critical thinking about why they support a particular political ideology. I have the greatest regard for those who in fact do. Most, however, think intelligent argument is to overtly or by implication insult the message and/or the messenger or the particular style of the messenger. Only a few are able to demonstrate objectivity, logic, and intellectual honesty when expressing their point of view. This I think is unfortunate.

I don't support a particular ideology because I am not sure what that is.I give my support or opposition to plans, activities, ideas (ISSUES) I opposed Bush's tax plan. I supported the attack of Afghanistan. I opposed the invasion of Iraq.

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Scrat wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Mesquite - Can you give me an example of grey-scale morality that does not simply devolve to no moral code at all?

Not unless you can tell me how using a black and white moral code drawn from the old testament can hold more authority than any number of other codes in that book that civilized society no longer can tolerate.

Okay, how about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? I'd call that pretty black and white. Are you claiming that it should hold no weight because of whence it is derived?

Err..war...Iraq...."God told me to attack Afganistan and Iraq,"....etc.....

Was that an effort to answer my question? The question was whether the notion that killing is wrong should be given no weight because it has biblical roots. Yes or no?

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

hobitbob wrote:
Scrat wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Mesquite - Can you give me an example of grey-scale morality that does not simply devolve to no moral code at all?

Not unless you can tell me how using a black and white moral code drawn from the old testament can hold more authority than any number of other codes in that book that civilized society no longer can tolerate.

Okay, how about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? I'd call that pretty black and white. Are you claiming that it should hold no weight because of whence it is derived?

Err..war...Iraq...."God told me to attack Afganistan and Iraq,"....etc.....

Was that an effort to answer my question? The question was whether the notion that killing is wrong should be given no weight because it has biblical roots. Yes or no?

Actually, the Bible is pretty ambivalent on killing. You might want to find a better example. Wink

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

mesquite wrote:
Scrat wrote:
Mesquite - Can you give me an example of grey-scale morality that does not simply devolve to no moral code at all?

Not unless you can tell me how using a black and white moral code drawn from the old testament can hold more authority than any number of other codes in that book that civilized society no longer can tolerate.

Okay, how about "Thou Shalt Not Kill"? I'd call that pretty black and white. Are you claiming that it should hold no weight because of whence it is derived?

Not even close. You misread my question. Why is "thou shalt no kill" more important than having your disrespectful son taken to the village leaders and stoned to death? To put it another way, how do you pick and choose which codes from that source are worthy and which are garbage?

My take on that is that we make a comparison to our combined learning and experiences as a society. There may also be a bit of critical thinking involved.

Edit: punctuation

0 Replies

And your argument is that Hannity disagrees with you?

0 Replies

Anyhow 'thou shalt not kill' as understood by the ancient Hebrew is 'thou shalt not murder' and even more specifically, 'thou shalt not murder another Hebrew'. To understand ancient scripture, it must be read through the eyes of those who wrote it. Twenty First Century understanding will screw it up almost every time.

I was going to apologize for getting off track on this thread, but now that I think about it, isn't part of critical thinking being able to be intellectually honest about where the other person is coming from instead of putting your own spin on his/her words?

That is NOT aimed at anybody in particular please. It's just an observation.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Anyhow 'thou shalt not kill' as understood by the ancient Hebrew is 'thou shalt not murder' and even more specifically, 'thou shalt not murder another Hebrew'.

Where did you get that translation from? Just wondering.

0 Replies

Scrat wrote:

And your argument is that Hannity disagrees with you?

One more time slowly.

I think it is more like I disagree with Hannity. He is the one that chooses to carry the old testament baggage and express himself in biblical terms of good, evil, god, and devil. I was merely pointing out why in my opinion that is so much nonsense.

You brought up "Thou shall not kill", as an example of a black and white moral code. That one seemed rather grey to me, but it was from the OT.

I asked why that moral code had more authority than say De21:18-21 below which is from the same source.

Quote:

.18 ¶ If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Clearly the De21:18-21 above is no longer respected by civilized societies. Nor is much much more.

The point I am trying to make is that drawing your moral code from the bible requires you to pick and choose which values to follow and which to discard. Therefore the authority must lay elsewhere.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Anyhow 'thou shalt not kill' as understood by the ancient Hebrew is 'thou shalt not murder' and even more specifically, 'thou shalt not murder another Hebrew'. To understand ancient scripture, it must be read through the eyes of those who wrote it. Twenty First Century understanding will screw it up almost every time.

That sort of thinking seems to remove the divine aspect and put it in terms of ancient mythology. I do believe we have found some common ground here. Very Happy

0 Replies

Tarantulas said

Quote:

The label "Progressive" that they're starting to use supposedly came from the website of the American Socialist Party.

No, not so. I keep telling you, you aren't reading credible sources. But it is a wonderful example of two things: false derogation and the dissemination of that.

Foxfyre said

Quote:

But a thought here--this is not criticism of Mesquite's position but an honest question in my mind--is Hannity unacceptable to the left because he sees things in black and white or is it because his bias is generally on the side of what is considered 'right wing'? Is it the 'right wing' that is the enemy?

Hannity is unacceptable for precisely the same reasons that Ann Coulter is unacceptable. Their pieces, and the one at the head is a paradigm example, are constructed with logical fallacies and with innuendo. There is, with either of them, little regard for fact and almost no regard for even an appearance of rigor in scholarship (eg, footnotes/endnotes, conclusions are seldom (never?) tentative, etc) and one will be very hard pressed to find any admission of previous error which isn't simply a "I was wrong, liberals are worse than I said".

0 Replies

Deliver us from Democrats

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know