FW: [Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

[LAURIE SOLOMON]

I, for one, thought it was an excellent response even in it alleged
abbreviated form. I am happy that he did not wait until he had more time to
construct a full reply.  If he did, he may not have gotten around to sharing
his thoughts with us at all and we will have missed some significant nuggets
of wisdom.  Also his arguments and points would probably not get any more
poignant  but might get too embedded in elaboration so as to lose their
sharp cutting edge.

 

I personally do not think that anyone objects to anyone else having morals,
ethics, or even religious beliefs that they abide by personally; it is when
those morals, ethics, and religious beliefs entail as intrinsic
prescriptions that they apply to everyone whether or not the others agree
with them and when those who are true believers insist on promoting them or
otherwise attempt t o convert others against their will by insisting on
public policies and their enforcement which make practices that are contrary
to said ethics, morality, and religious beliefs illegal and sanctioned
offenses.  To be entirely neutral, tolerant, and fair to all, it would seem
that they would insist on public policy and its enforcement not say anything
or do anything one way or the other with respect to say ethical, moral, or
religious prescriptions; but we know that this would be impractical.  Thus,
I would propose that the error be on the side of those laws which  allow the
individual actors their personal options to follow or not follow the
prescriptions in accordance with their beliefs, needs, and situations.

 

The  central problem with issues like abortion is that the advocates of each
of the various sides of the argument have no consensus on (1) when life
begins, (2) why human beings are any more valued than other life forms such
that their lives are to be protected while other life forms can be killed
for all kinds of reasons -scientific, legal, political, economic,
entertainment, human survival, etc.), (3) who should make the judgment calls
and decisions as when and how definitions are to be applied and rules
enforced or when there is or should be an exception to the rule, and (4) why
one set of beliefs that stem from one culture should take preference over
alternative sets of beliefs that may hold sway in other cultures?  I am not
even going to get into the debate over if it is a moral issue or a privacy
issue, an individual's right to control their own body or the collectives
right to insure its survival by being fruitful and multiplying, or any of
the assorted other associated issues.  Without consensus on the resolution
of said issues, it all boils down to "might makes right" where those with
the most power and numbers gets to dominate the minorities and enforce their
beliefs on them (all the moral, ethical, and religious reasoning behind such
moves becomes mere justification and legitimating excuses for the use of
power, force, authority, and demographics by one group over the others.

 

 

From: peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net
[mailto:peace-discuss-bounces at lists.chambana.net] On Behalf Of E. Wayne
Johnson
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 6:29 AM
To: Ricky Baldwin
Cc: loriserb at loriserb.info; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

 

Perhaps it would have been good to have taken the time to have constructed a
full reply.

Ricky Baldwin wrote: 

Maybe it's a good thing I don't have time right now to give a full reply to
this, but I find that I cannot let it pass.  Too many friends taking the
brunt of this nonsense about "morality" - perhaps that's what we need to
find a cure for, Wayne: this so-called "morality" that is so blind and
ignorant and fearful that it mainfests itself as hate, bigotry, support for
centuries of brutal oppression.

 

I once had a conversation with my grandmother about gods and devils.  In
those days I was young and naive and believed in everything my family taught
me about gods and devils, as well as morals.  I still believe what they
taught me about morals.  I asked my grandmother, if a person hears an inner
voice (or reads a tract, for that matter) how is a well-meaning human being
to know whether it is the voice of angels/god/Jesus or the voice of devils?
By what the voice says, she told me, by what the voice says. 

 

I am not a religious person, so I generally do my best not to lecture
religious people on religion.  I have a big mouth, however, and I am very
mindful of ethics - and as in this case I feel obliged too speak up against
evil.  This bigotry against people whose *desires* are different (of all
things!) is evil.  It is as evil as racism, as woman-hating (whatever you
want to call it), as the hatred of heretics and witches.

 

Not only is it not based on the biology it claims - anybody who has ever had
dogs should know this, or quite a few other animals, anyone who knows much
about actual and not idealized animal behavior, that is, humans or other
animals, incl. mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians (see "Biological
Exuberance" for an excellent cataloguing of non-missionary-style animal
sexual behavior) - but, most importantly, it is not based on the *morality*
it claims.

 

Friends, morality cannot derive from gods or other supernatural beings or
the fear or love of them, any more than it derives from human legislation.
The question my old philosphy teacher (actually, my mother's - I was a guest
in the class, playing hookey from school) raised to make his students think
- Is the Good good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is
good? - can have only one moral answer, if we accept the premises.  Our
gods, if we have any, must always be judged by our morality and not the
other way around.  My hillbilly grandmother knew that much.

 

This is contrary to certain teachings in the Torah, the Bible, the Koran,
like the story of Abraham and Isaac.  So be it.  Our fellow human beings are
more important than these texts, upon which in any event I understand that
many adherents disagree.
 

Ricky 

"Speak your mind even if your voice shakes." - Maggie Kuhn 

 

 

  _____  

From: E. Wayne Johnson  <mailto:ewj at pigs.ag> <ewj at pigs.ag>
To: John W.  <mailto:jbw292002 at gmail.com> <jbw292002 at gmail.com>
Cc: loriserb at loriserb.info; peace-discuss at anti-war.net
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2009 7:27:02 PM
Subject: Re: [Peace-discuss] Obama gets another one right

Alienated?  Strong disagreement doesn't have to necessarily lead people to
be disagreeable.

If your friend had chosen a different lifestyle he may have lived longer.  
The life expectancy of homosexual men and women is 20 to 30 years shorter
than
the general population, not just due to "AIDS" but also due to accidents,
heart disease, homicides,
and suicide.  It seems that the benefits of working out a cure for
homosexuality rather than
assimilating it are significant.

I havent been ignoring your questions. I will go back and see what I missed.

I should not shy from controversy nor your questions.

Your hypotheses are interesting but difficult to test, but I don't believe
that homosexuality is 
obligatory.  One might be hot tempered but not allow rage to proceed to
homicide.  One could
be tempted by something seen, but not be a thief.

Going to look for your other questions that I must have missed...



John W. wrote: 

Wayne, you're diggin' yourself a deeper and deeper hole, man.  Your
"reasoning" is based on Scripture much more than on biology, and a number of
folks on this list have made it clear that they don't subscribe to the Bible
as the ultimate repository of all Truth.  I know you do, but further
attempts to convince everyone else will be futile and will alienate you from
the rest of the group.  But what do I know?  Perhaps you WANT to be
alienated.

If I based my opinions only on Scripture, I would believe as you do.  I used
to believe as you do years ago.  But then I got to thinking a bit, or rather
looking around me and observing what was actually happening in the real
world.

My best "double-dating" buddy in high school turned out to be gay, and
eventually died of AIDS, one of the early casualties.  In high school he
dated girls, but he didn't really treat them the same way that other guys
treated girls.  He loved to dance, but mostly so that he could be admired
for his dancing skills.   He loved to look at himself in the mirror.  His
favorite activity with women was to sit and talk about fashion, hair styles,
makeup, etc.  At the time I thought he was a little odd compared to my other
male friends, but I had never even heard of homosexuality in those days.  I
was naive.  And he was my friend.

Eventually Marty got "turned out" by an older British gentleman, and ended
up living in San Francisco for quite a few years with male roommates.

Looking back, I can't IMAGINE that my friend Marty made a "choice", at age
13, to have those feminine characteristics.  It's clear to me that he was
born with a predilection to be gay.  And how can you hold someone morally
accountable for something that is not a choice?

You call yourself a biologist, and you say that homosexuality is an
aberration.  Let us try to reconcile seemingly disparate viewpoints.  Let us
suppose, just for the sake of argument, that something goes slightly awry in
the womb during the period of gestation, and more specifically during the
time of sexual development.  It is not inconceivable that the male fetus,
for whatever reason, receives slightly too much estrogen and not enough
testosterone.  For the female fetus it would be the reverse.  So they're
born with a slight imbalance of hormones, which would be sufficient to alter
their later gender attractions.  Is that not at least a biologically
feasible hypothesis?  And if it is, how can you hold the child/adult morally
accountable?

I note in passing that even my suggestion above will be utterly unacceptable
to some on this list.

I also note that you, Wayne, tend not to reply to my questions.  I wonder
why that is?  Am I simply too stupid for you?  Or could it be that you
recognize that I know what is in your mind and heart a little too well?
Just asking.



On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 3:26 PM, E. Wayne Johnson <ewj at pigs.ag> wrote:

As I recall, we got into this via a celebration of Obama "Getting it Right".

'Twas not I who brought up the issue of Homosexuality but I did offer my
opinion
once it was broached.  I think it was the rearing of children by homosexuals
which I
responded to, as that is definitely a case of the effect of adult behaviour
negatively impacting children.
Since the state is involved in legal adoptions, I would not favour the
placement of adopted children
or foster children into homosexual environments, nor into single parent
homes, recognizing that
some people I consider to be friends will disagree on this point. 
There are others, potentially enemies of the US, who view this society as
decadent and they
do seek to condemn and threaten this society and thus provide stimulus to
our warmongers.  I did not suggest
any particular action against homosexuals.  Finding the cause and treating
the problem at its
roots seems desirable as an option.  Some people in our society have even
suggested capital punishment. I did not.  I do want to see a halt to the
recruitment and promotion of homosexuality.
While I think that law is rather incapable of inducing morality, I don't
think immorality should be celebrated.

We don't celebrate political corruption or theft or warmongering as
acceptable behaviours.
Homosexuality is likewise immoral and it is in the same class of pathologic
sexual behaviour as
adultery,  rape, and child molestation.  Some aberrent sexual behaviours
include a component of
violence and some do not.  It does contribute to the destructuring of the
society.

Dr. King whom we celebrated last week, also taught that Reality hinges on
Moral Foundations.
I don't think that we can achieve full potential as a society if we embrace
and promote immoral
behaviours.  There is a general negative effect on the non-participants.

I would not agree that the practice of a homosexual lifestyle is a private
matter because
it is becoming pervasive and widely advertised as a reasonable alternative
option to a heterosexual
lifestyle. 



Bob Illyes wrote:

 

Mort wrote "Indeed, I wish and recommend that discussions of God's
immanence, how "we" are a Christian country, and why women's ability to
decide their own lives should be forbidden are inappropriate for a
peace-discuss list. (I wouldn't recommend Nazi propaganda on the list
either, but I suppose to some that would be bigoted.)"

Indeed. Why strive for peace when we can have wars over sexuality and
religion, eh? This sort of thinking gave us the Spanish Inquisition, witch
burning, and the Holocaust. Why stop now?

Wayne commented regarding same-sex couples with children that he is "amazed
that this sort of sick stuff is going on so close by." WHAT???

Want to take this back, Wayne? Calling people you don't agree with "sick" is
really out of line.

I agree with Lori's "Amen, Mort".

Bob

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20090129/538a7a71/attachment-0001.html