02.15.03
R E L I G I O N   < <  rants  <  the_board   ||
Baiting the Fervant.

A religious discussion in a blog that threatened to turn a little nasty. The debate that ensued dissembled largely because of hasty generalizations and entirely literal interpretation. Trying to work the corner I backed into.

bold is the fundie guy, italics is part of my original post, and regular text is my current (more assembled) thoughts.

I don't think it's so black and white as "matters concerning personal safety" and then "everything else." If I own a store and someone breaks in at night and steals my goods, my personal safety was not threatened. Yet there are few, if any, people who would honestly argue that there's any way to classify the thief's behavior as anything but fundamentally wrong/bad/etc.

Personal as in person + all coveted (important) items. Damage could be physical, or fiscal, or psychological -- due harm. If someone steals your things, he has taken value from you, damaged you. You have lost something to someone else, the very definition of most crimes of property or passion.

And, to further explain, there are many people who -- given the right set of circumstances -- would consider a thief's behavior entirely justified and not 'bad' at all but simply behavior bourne of necessity. What if the thief were a starving man? A little child? A person who was very sick or in a great amount of trouble? Robin Hood? I'm certain that thieves themselves think they are justified. Therefore, there are many, if any, people who would say that thievery, some times, is okay.

And that leaves the area of grey. That is why there are trials and that's why there is the question of intent. Justifiable homicide. Self-defense. That sort of thing.

Regardless of your beliefs on WHY they are classified that way, it is an independent fact that they ARE classified that way, and that is my point. There exists some universal notion of things that are simply not acceptable.

In this society, at this time, there are general societal opinions. We are lucky enough to live in a time of majority rule. It hasn't always been this way, and it isn't this way in some places for some people.

And one thing that is certain -- things change. Things that we think of now as ungodly horrible, practices we outlaw or forbid or simply stigmitize out of existence... are practiced as routine by other peoples. Drugs, body modification, homosexuality, abortion, women's suffrage—just to name a few—are all topics that are unbroachable in some peoples and normative in others. Who is right? Who is wrong? Do we have any way of knowing—definitively—the answer to that question?

Murder, rape, abuse, theft, extortion, and deception are all behaviors that usually result in much badness

I have to disagree strongly with that statement. Anyone who's been raped will tell you that it didn't merely "result in much badness," but it was bad in itself. You cannot sit there and tell me that rape is not inherently bad, but simply "results in badness."

"Badness" was flippant, I'll admit, but it was an attempt to express the world as you are defining it -- clearly good and clearly bad, simplistic, a pure exercise in Orwellian Newspeak. Everything, according to your argument, is either "good" or "bad". These are remarkably distinct states, but even so for things so dissimilar, easily flipped one for the other. What one person considers good (justice), another might see as bad (revenge). It's all about perspective. Rape, in the eye of the victim, is much badness. Heap o' pain. We all know this, it's a given.

But rape in the mind of the rapist -- is a pleasurable act. Sexual power, physical power, whatever the key is, s/he likes it. And even if we disregard the point of view of the actor, lest we forget, not too terribly long ago (even in our own American societies), rape was permissable. Husbands were allowed to rape their wives (sexual access was considered a male right). Land owners were allowed to rape their slaves. The 'occupation' of forcible sexual service has been part of many many modern and ancient organizations. I realize that in your opinion, "good" people (the only ones that count) all believe that rape is bad. But those "good people" are -- fortunately or not, I'm not sure -- not the only people in any society.

And that was the point I was trying to make. The act of rape is definately bad for the victim. But what is it for the rapist? What is it to another rapist? Or to a misogynist? Or to someone who viewed women as mere currency? I know these people are "bad" according to your moral rule, but they do still count, if we're going to be perfectly logically fair.

Just because I personally think that we "ought not" to execute people doesn't make it a moral rule

You mentioned the example of a serial killer earlier. Are you telling me that it's just your personal belief that it's wrong to be serial killer? Are you telling me that it's not flat-out unconditionally bad to be a serial killer?

I don't have all the answers there -- and that is precisely why I refuse to categorically say any act is automatically "bad". For example, in today's times, we seem to believe that there are many varieties of emotional/social misbehavior we broadly term "mental illness". Mentally ill individuals are capable of a host of acts against themselves and others. This, obviously, would create the perception that the ill individual was "bad". He might hear voices that tell him to kill people. She might be drawn to impulsively start fires. With medication or treatment, perhaps these people can be cured. We don't execute the insane for this reason.

And that is the crux of the biscuit (great read) -- people who serially murder are sick, sick individuals. Perhaps they are chemically damaged in a way we don't yet understand; perhaps one trigger or switch would be all we have to discover to end the impulse. But that is what it is -- an impulse. A compulsion. And do we punish the ill for responding to their uncontrollable urges? I don't know that a humane people can. Do we want to be humane? Those are huge questions, ones I like to leave the doors open for.

Categorically defining every act as black or white leaves out so much of the real middle ground.

Also, again, to bring up the subject of stereotypically "bad" behavior for "good" reasons -- what if the serial killer was killing... rapists? What moral "side" is he on then? And what about the perspective of the serial killer? Does he think his hobby is "bad" or merely an expression of his extreme dissatisfaction at the world? What about the perspective of the serial killer fans? Think about Ted Bundy. Plenty of people were perfectly willing to accept Bundy's "bad" behavior—they idolized him, and one went so far as to marry and procreate with him. Do they count?

I think the very idea of "right" and "wrong" with regard to the origins of ideologies we will never truly understand are rather useless. That is not a call to judgement, except by extreme extrapolation. I'm simply saying that the classifications are invalid, and the existence of the so-called 'moral absolute' is emotional trickery.

That is a judgment on your part, there is no "extreme extrapolation" needed, regardless of your attempt to present your judgment in a non-judgmental way. You are saying that belief systems (like Christianity and virtually all others) which make statements about right and wrong are "useless," "invalid," and amount to / are based on "emotional trickery." You are of course entitled to believe that, to judge that for yourself, but there is no way around the fact that that is what you are doing.

Things get really unclear in here -- "ideologies we will never truly understand" was referring to past practices, or societies which would differ from our own with regard to specific moral rules. Examples would include societies that practice genital mutilation, or where 'extra' children were normally sold as slaves. One of the things I was thinking at the time I wrote it was that the idea of women's place in society today versus during biblical times would fit this model. A modern woman would likely consider her place in biblical times pretty "bad". But even the "bad" conditions of modern day life would seem rather luxurious to anyone from early times. Again, it is all about perspective.

Because I refuse to stereotype behavior (because in essence, we are labelling action without regard for causality), I am judging? Hmm.

It is only when that base becomes a jumping-off point for desecration of the "other"

Certainly, and no honest Christian uses their faith as a purpose/means to "desecrate" anyone else or their beliefs. However if your faith says that a particular action/belief is wrong, then you have a duty to uphold that. Otherwise you're just paying lip service to your "faith." There's nothing wrong with saying "I think you're wrong for believing this or that." If you don't agree with it, then you don't, and that's fine. The fact is that my Christian faith teaches me that certain actions/beliefs are wrong, and the fact that I believe that, doesn't mean I'm "desecrating" those actions/beliefs.

But there are things that go beyond a few simple words, actions that -- for one reason or another -- are viewed by a group as utterly objectionable. There is a point where simply standing by won't do. And that is what the great downside of judgment really is: creating methods by which to oppose one another.

The strict sense of morality that imbues most of the religious (right) applies to many more cases than simply comments in a conversation. You would usually be correct in assuming that simple testaments of personal faith or polite disagreement would pass by without causing a scene, but it's when the moral terpitude influences the communal environment that things get a bit sticky. Seperation of church and state, promotion of religious interests, educational moral issues, media and ratings. All these things are areas where one person's 'judgement' conflicts with another, all based on those varying shades of grey. We interact. We create something together. We limit ourselves... and others.

But there is a big difference between upholding personal limits (turning off the television) and upholding 'community standards' (controlling what programming is available). I want to keep it personal. You want to make it universal. Hence, we disagree.

R E L I G I O N   < <  rants  <  the_board   ||