From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Culture Wars: `Us' vs `Them'
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey (I think)
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 17:19:41 GMT


 [ Note: my e-mail address may or may not change soon.  Said change may or
   may not depend on the College's name change, which may or may not happen. ]

Kerry Stephenson writes:

> The cultural divide is between those who hold stubbornly to the notion that
> one should stand firm for what's right, and those who refuse to acknowledge
> that anything can be *wrong*.

Do you actually expect to convince anybody of your positions when you continue
to paint the world as if it you represent the Forces of Light, and anyone who
disagrees with you is an Agent of Satan?

You may get applause from the people who already imagine themselves in a
fortress surrounded by The Enemy, but do you really believe that anyone else
will join you inside?


Religiously speaking, I would guess that we come close to complete agreement
on many diverse issues.  The difference is that I think Christians should not
attempt to control others without clear Biblical instructions and ironclad
proof, while you are prepared to enforce legislation on large groups of people
who have never done anything to harm anybody.

Because of this political disagreement, you claim I -- and many other
committed Christians -- "refuse to acknowledge that anything can be wrong".
Rubbish.  I think LOTS of things are morally wrong, and (ta-da) legislation
based on the undemonstrated principles of a single religion is morally wrong.
Yes, I think your desire to mold the law to your unproven beliefs is a sin.  I
think your wish for governmental intimidation of others is a direct violation
of Jesus' teachings as recorded in the Gospels.

I don't write 10 posts about it every day, because it's a waste of time and
bandwidth, but that is my best evaluation the ideas you've presented.


> There is an absolute morality.  One side claims to know it, the other
> claims to know that there is no such thing.

Not quite.  I claim that absolute morality *does* exist, that people have
(imperfect) access to it, and that prostituting the church by having it lay
down with governments violates that absolute morality.  Your simplistic
division of the debate into to `sides' has little basis in reality.

And even if (by some miracle) all the Christians were agreed about all
political issues, that wouldn't make it a two-sided affair.  There are
numerous _other_ religious people (muslims, eg) who accept an absolute
morality and who think we are wrong about what it is.

Even total agreement by all theists won't produce the simple split you
describe.  Bertrand Russell, an agnostic, once argued in a debate that an
absolute morality _does not_ depend on the existence of a Deity.  Ergo, it
is possible for non-theists to accept that there is an absolute morality.
(I don't have a reference handy, but if I can find one I'll pass it along.)

In short, there are more than two sides to this.  There are probably several
dozen -- if not several hundred -- reasonable subgroups.  Many of them accept
the idea of an absolute morality, but disagree with you about what it is and
whether/how it should be enacted through legislation.

You have repeatedly painted the disagreements about political issues in two
colors: black and white.  You describe those who disagree with you in simple
terms, lumping them into a single group as if they are all in a coordinated
effort against morality solely to make you mad.

Until you realise that disagreements about such issues have a variety of
motivations and intents -- and that the people who disagree with you are not
all God-hating heathen scumbags -- nothing you say will make much sense.


> As Christians, we must dedicate our lives, our hearts, our spirits, our
> *everything* to Jesus.  [...]  We must stand with Jesus, no matter who says
> otherwise.  We must answer to Him alone.  [...]

So what has this got to do with whether a homosexual man can get legal "next
of kin" status for his lifelong mate?  How would that interfere with my living
out the Gospel?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"It does me no harm for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god.
 It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." -- Thomas Jefferson
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia