From: jfh@rpp386.lonestar.org (John F. Haugh II)
Newsgroups: tx.politics
Subject: Re: JFH and Fred's Ridiculous Flaming
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:45:30 GMT
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II)
Distribution: tx
Organization: River Parishes Programming, Austin, Republic of Texas

In article <1992Sep14.143557.27914@NeoSoft.com> rocky@NeoSoft.com (Joe Mullally) writes:
>>I don't reply to your postings because they
>>aren't worth replying to.
>
>	In your opinion.

In quite a few peoples opinion.  Your posts have this same general low
quality as this posting.

>             One approach, which is the one I felt you took, was simply 
>to condemn the slaveowners for their immorality. I tend to feel that there
>are good reasons not to simply do so, not the least of which is to look
>more closely at modern times and ask: In what ways am I a slaveowner?
>Understanding that those men and women didn't _all_ think they were
>doing anything "wrong", didn't even question the ownership of slaves,
>makes me wonder what _I_ accept as okay. You see, if the Greek Olympics
>took place today, I could probably win some events, judging by the 
>ongoing improvement of athletes. This doesn't make me a world class
>athlete any more than your condemnation of slaveowners makes you a
>"good", "moral" person. So, who's going to make use of the mistake of
>slave ownership- you or me? We both are. Your usage is to make yourself
>feel better about yourself, IMHO. My usage is as above.

One more time, only less slowly.

Slavery was wrong in the 18th and 19th century because the people who
were slave owners at the time violated their own moral beliefs to justify
slavery.  Not the moral beliefs of TODAY, but the moral beliefs of
YESTERDAY.  St. Paul wrote that wives should obey their husbands, right?
But how many men who quote that verse bother to quote the next one which
says that husbands must love their wives as themselves?  This is the sort
of selective editing which lets you get away with this deluded belief
that slavery was "acceptable" according to the accepted moral code of the
era.

My condemnation of slavery doesn't make me feel better - I already feel
good knowing that I don't enslave others and that in the real world - not
the makebelieve world of USENET - that I live according to my moral code.
My condemnation of slavery falls out of my desire for moral consistency.
If St. Paul wrote that slaves should obey their masters =and= masters
should treat their slaves fairly, I expect slave ownes to actually obey
the writings of their religious leaders.  Likewise, if the motto of New
Hampshire is "Live Free or Die", I expect certain CIVIL leaders to preach
and encourage FREEDOM over SLAVERY.

Your use of moral relativism will not benefit you because it makes you
unable to see what is wrong TODAY.  You look at what is going on and
think that because it is popular or common-place it is acceptable.  This
is the justification for saying that slavery was acceptable - people
did it.  Big deal.  Prior to the 1830's or so, parents killed their
young children.  Prior to the 1940's or so, parents severely beat their
young children.  All of this in direct contradiction of the religious
and moral beliefs that they claimed to follow.

As for your being a world-class athlete, if you can compete on a fair
and level playing field and win in a competition against your peers, you
ARE a world class athlete.  If you religion says love your children,
your spouse, AND your slaves and you don't, you are not following the
moral code you pretend to endorse.
-- 
John F. Haugh II                   | "The US Government has the Midas Muffler
Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  touch: everything they touch turns to
UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  shit."
Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |                  -- Jay Maynard