From: greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com (Greg Bradt aka The Lensman)
Subject: Re: Your own words, of course != bigot
XXXDate: Mon, 4 Jan 93 17:47:21 GMT
XUserAgent: Nuntius v1.1.1d16
XXXMessageID: <A76DC6395F010614@greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com>
Organization: US West Marketing Resources
NntpPostingHost: greg_bradt.mrg.uswest.com
Date: 04 Jan 93 17:48:22 GMT

In article <C07sD3.3w5@NeoSoft.com> Jim Shirreffs, jpsb@NeoSoft.com writes:
> >The idea that the strength of our society is based on sharing as many of
the
> >same values as possible is contrary to my understanding of the principles
> >this country was founded on.  The only values that it is important that we
> >all share are those which allow us to enjoy the freedoms and benefits of
the
> >culturally diverse society (and world) that we are. 
> 
> People expect others, their 
> neighbors, friends and community leaders to share thier values. This is 
> human nature!

> But we have every right to expect others in our society to share our
values. 
> And by enlarged most Americans *do* share a J/C morality. 

Setting aside the fact that Judeo Christian Morality can mean anything from
"Do unto others..." to keeping Kosher, I'll accept, for the sake of
argument, that most people share those "values."  My point is that, in order
to function as a free society, we must make room for those who do not toe
our particular religious party line.  We are dealing here with a case in
point of how this country's legal system is set up to prevent tyranny by the
majority.

> Why do you think the pilgrims came over here in the first place? To get
away 
> from people that didn't share their values. Dido for other early settlers. 

Actually, they came over here to escape religious intolerance.  It's my hope
that we do not become the kind of country that people feel the same need to
flee from for similar reasons.

> Do you think that society functions because of laws? It doesn't my friend, 
> society functions on trust. I trust you to behave in a manner similar to 
> mine. I trust you not to steal because we both *believe* stealing is
wrong, not 
> illegal, wrong. There is a BIG difference between illegal and wrong.
Illegal 
> is breaking a rule ("rules where made to be broken", right?).  Wrong is 
> betraying our shared values. When you do something wrong you are
ostracizing 
> yourself from all those that trusted you.

I agree 100%.  Stealing is ethically wrong.  People with any concept of
ethical behavior find that very easy to understand.  If we condone stealing,
then we threaten our right to own property.

However, this does =not carry over to out basic discussion about
homosexuality.  There is =no= ethical justification for depriving gays of
the same societal benefits and protections that the rest of us share.

> Tell me greg what do you think about English, do you think it would be 
> "good" if all Americans where able to speak English? Read and write 
> English. You better say no Lensman or you're the biggest hypocrite posting
> on the internet.

Absolutely!  There is no question that one is better off if one can speak
English.  It is an extremely useful skill in this society.  However, I would
oppose any attempt to arbitrarily discriminate against anyone who could not!
 

Please be clear about one thing here... arbitrary discrimination would =not=
include denying them a job that required them to read or speak English.  It
would be just as legitimate as denying a homosexual a job that required
him/her to have heterosexual sex.

> What myths? How can you even use a word like "ethics", you have no concept
> of right and wrong, as far as you are concerned everything is OK.

No!!!  What we are disagreeing on is how we define "right" and "wrong", and
how we apply those principles to our laws and behavior.  You have to
understand the fundamental difference between "ethics" and "morality."

Perhaps I can make it clear by example.  It is immoral for a Baptist to
drink alcohol.  By doing so they are acting contrary to their expressed
beliefs.  The Baptist probably feels that it is immoral for the atheist to
drink alcohol.  However, it would be unethical for the Baptist to try to
prevent the Atheist from drinking.  Change "drinking" to "having an
abortion" or "being a homosexual" (and the Baptist to a religion having a
prohibition against it) and the same example applies.

> Aren't 
> you the one that said there was no reason to separate men and womens living
> quarters in the military?

You missed my point, there.  What I said was that it was not =necessary=. 
The reason for doing so is that we have a societal tradition of segregation.
 The military decided to maintain that tradition.  No problem!  It's their
budget!  (Incidentally, to put this in context, the point was made in
response to someone suggesting that we segregate gays, where there is no
such tradition).

> Aren't you the one that said no one has a right 
> to privacy in the military?

Not me!  I was making the point that the military allows very little
privacy, relative to the private sector, and that to expect =more= privacy
in some regards was a little unrealistic.

> Aren't you the one that tried to start the 
> "Hey how the debate going" thread to feed your insatiable ego?

I did so to try to 1) encourage people to argue the issues (as opposed to
personal insults) and keep the discussion useful, and 2) to bring some of
the "lurkers" into the conversation.  It =was= an experiment, and it didn't
work, but I did get a little email feedback... (5 to 1 in support of my
arguments, if you are interested).

> Why do you think there are so many murders, robberies, rapes, assaults,
etc?
> I'll tell you why Lensman, because a large part of our society no longer
shares
> our belief that human life is precious, because a large part of our
society 
> no longer respects private property, because a large part of our society
no 
> longer respects individuals rights. And that is just the "tip of the ice
berg"
> Lensman. How many cheat in school? How many steal from insurance companies?
> How many people plagiarize others works?  

Yes, these are problems, but these are all =ethical= issues, and ones which
are not at odds in any way with religious morality.  I =agree= that our
society is losing ground in these regards, and that something needs to be
done about it.  The question is =what=!

I don't have all the answers, but I can see one clearly wrong one.  It would
be tragic if we were to abandon ethics in favor of some kind of "absolute
morality" based on religious principles.

> Greg you are a very bright fellow. Why don't you give up your libertarian
> Utopian bullsh*t and start dealing with the real world. The real world is
> very pragmatic my friend.

Actually, I think I =am= a pragmatist.  Perhaps my one spark of hopeful
idealism comes from my belief that people are capable of being "good"
without the threat of eternal damnation from a God whose "representatives"
fail to meet my (relatively high) ethical standards.

Greg Bradt aka ()The Lensman()

greg_bradt@msmgate.mrg.uswest.com | tFreedom means sometimes
Genie: G.BRADT                    |   having to put up with
Compuserve: 70206,172             |   things that really
BBS: (303)290 9243                |   piss you offa.
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh