Cartoons and common sense

quote:

---

The culture that finds them reasonable can consist of one person, or a mob of people.

---

Or an oppressed people that have no outlet for their fustrations or avenues to make positive changes in their lives.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Hi CP Perhaps. But it matters little. One persons 'whys' are as good a reason for forming a set of beliefs as any other. One persons whys are as reasonable as anothersIt could be seen by some that certain cultures have too many outlets and avenues for their desires and frustrations to be expressed. And that it would be better for everyone if these were reigned inThis message has been edited by iano, 06-Feb-2006 05:20 PM

quote:

---

OK, point taken.

---

Damn. I was hoping to get an argument from you, and use this as a segue to make the points that Omnivorous ended up making.What is lacking in this thread is any mention of the geopolitical and historical context in which these events are occurring.Now, my initial reaction to the Muslim protests is that this paper and the Danish govenment should have flipped them all the finger. I still feel that way, but that is because of the personal distaste I have for dogmatic religions.On the other hand, if an American newspaper published cartoons, say, of Martin Luther King, Jr., in an unflattering racial stereotypical manner and subsequently there were riots in several US cities, my first reaction would not be to condemn the riots, nor would condemnation of the riots become my main response to these hypothetical events.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

quote:

---

It could be seen by some that certain cultures have too many outlets and avenues for their desires and frustrations to be expressed. And that it would be better for everyone if these were reigned in

---

Which seems to be the attitude of the Muslims (at least some of them) in this case.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Which brings me back to my first point in this thread. Everyone is being reasonable because reasonable is derived from ones own beliefs. And everyone thinks their own beliefs are reasonableEven me. Even you.

Wow I go out for a short break and the thread has totally passed me up. I'll refrain from answering all of your replies individually (sorry about that), and try to handle the theme by answering this last one of yours. I think it hits the core anyway. You are wrong about this. Despite a lack of reporting Jewish extremist violence against palestinians continues and it is both religiously motivated and indiscriminate. One might point out that the whole concept of Israel is religious domination. But for sake of keeping things lower key, we can avoid that specific subject.The bombing of the Oklahoma City building was by a Xian extremist. Up until 911 that was pretty much the worst terrorist attack we had suffered. After 911 the JDL (jewish extremists) were caught in a plot to blow up mosques and kill a US congressman.In the Serbian region violence by Xians against muslims is (or was) common, religious motivated, and indiscriminate. Someone else can correct me but isn't some of the IRA issues dealing with Protestant/Catholic issues?And as I will remind you again, the theater I was in watching a simple movie was surrounded by screaming/violent Xians and under bomb threat.There is an issue with Islamic extremism right now. It is perhaps greater than some of the other extremist groups at this time. But its not like the others are not a threat, or have somehow reduced as a threat.And it is incorrect to paint all those that were upset with the cartoons, and protesting them, as being extremists or terrorists... even if they are oversensitive. I don't know if you are seeing reports, but some muslim clerics have been denouncing the violence and indeed were at the riots trying to stop them.If you went to a demonstration, and a bunch of extremists acted out, would it be right to make out like you have something to do with them?{AbE: I forgot to mention abortion clinic shootings and bombings. All religiously motivated and indiscriminate.}This message has been edited by holmes, 02-06-2006 07:12 PM

---

holmes
"What you need is sustained outrage...there's far too much unthinking respect given to authority." (M.Ivins)

I see, iano, that I was mistaken in thinking you were asserting your own beliefs in this thread; rather, you are attempting to hoist mine by their own petard. Fair enough, and I'm relieved to see that that is so.You have ascribed to me an extreme form of moral relativism which you derive chiefly from my stand on evolution and my agnosticism. Further, you insist that your beliefs--the need for an "objective" (i.e., supernatural) source for a moral ground--leaves no room for any other form of moral relativism. The logical result, you claim, is that moral relativism necessarily collapses into the chaos of every man for himself.But that is not, in fact, the position I hold, and I think my posts in this thread make at least that much clear. Nor is it logically necessary that moral relativism must collapse into moral chaos.You earlier used the example of a lion, asking if one could reasonably "blame" the lion for its predatory nature and actions. Of course not: lions have not negotiated a moral, cultural, or political compact with us. The nations of the Middle East have.Evolution is a good place to start. We evolved as social animals, and the process of defining moral standards has also been social. The rough outlines of the moral values you claim can only exist in the framework of the supernatural, in fact, predate any belief you would recognize as a valid religion. The commonality of many moral values around the world testify to the authentic "objective" ground of morality: the common conditions we find ourselves in and the common interests we share as individuals and as groups.Our closest primate cousins do recognize the dominance of the fittest or strongest individual, but they also practice a pragmatic morality: cheaters in mutualism are punished, thieves are resisted and punished, the troop bands together to expunge excessively aggressive leaders, etc.In our case, language and a greater intelligence have permitted considerable refinement. From our own natural, primitive state of might-makes-right, we developed norms that promote social cohesion and order, thus improving each individual's fitness by removing threats to all. Once political culture reached a level beyond the chiefdom, we began to evolve intercultural foundations that served a wider range of participants.One might think, based on your message, that no agreement had been reached on the issues at hand. But we do, in fact, have an extensive set of multinational treaties and charters that spell out such subtleties as the unacceptability of allowing violent mobs to attack members of another signatory's population, precisely because of the (near) universal recognition that a bright line can be drawn between violence resorted to in self-defense and its more aggressive forms.Only a few years ago the high seas were considered a no-man's land by nearly every nation; that has changed dramatically, and not at the hand of a supernatural lawgiver, but at the mind and hand of humankind.It is true that we must create our own values; humanity has spent millennia doing just that. That there is no supernatural lawgiver does not mean that we have not developed our own moral laws, negotiated through painful experience and the recognition of both common and competing interests.At present cultural and moral relativism need be most engaged at international levels, where large groups who have already negotiated their own compacts interact with other large groups with differing compacts. As I pointed out above, many of the inevitable tensions and frictions have been addressed by multinational treaties and charters; imperfectly, of course, but addressed nonetheless. There remain, of course, tensions and frictions within national boundaries--the moral compacts within nations are also constantly in evolutionary flux--but less so than international compacts because each of these intranational groups have generally been at it longer, and their populations are more homogenous in outlook.My own moral relativism builds on the human and humane golden rule--not the dictate of a God--to conclude that deliberate, violent harm done to another for reasons other than self-defense is wrong. The past few centuries have witnessed that belief come closer and closer to a moral bedrock for all humanity. I'm proud of us for that.In nearly every nation, the remaining contentiousness about their respective moral compact has focused closest on finer-grained issues: for example, I believe I enjoy an individual sovereignty of consciousness, and I may do what I please with it as long as I harm no others. That is my subjective moral belief, but I also accept the larger moral law that violent resistance to my culture's attempt to impose its compact upon my behavior would be immoral; to further complicate the issue, I believe that subjecting me to violent punishment for acting on my belief would be immoral. Navigating such complexities as individuals and groups is how we participate in the evolution of morality.We have moral laws. Yes, we made them up, but we made them up and tested them against the world we find ourselves in--and we found them good. Perhaps it is the religious who most threaten those hard-won laws and what peaceful order they provide us, for their certainty threatens imposition on the unbeliever, and when the believers' faith falters, their morality has no anchor.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-06-2006 01:14 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-06-2006 01:18 PMThis message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-06-2006 01:19 PM

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

The Republicans (IRA) comprise nominally of Catholics and the Unionist/British side , nominally Protestants. But the issue is not a religious one. Its about colonialism - or at least it was up to some point where things got blurred at it became about rackettering and mob acivities. No more than the English and the Germans fought because of their inherant Englishness and Germanness is the conflict about Catholicism/Protestantism.It looks like the war is over now at any rate. Thank GodThis message has been edited by iano, 06-Feb-2006 06:20 PM

Hi, iano.Yes, your statement is so obviously true that I cannot think of any comment to make on it.Cheers.

---

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

Try:"But I am certain within my heart that there exists an objective standard by which both mine and their reasonableness can be compared - thus I must conclude there is a God after all. It may be only an intellectual assent - but conclude this I must"It's a good a place as any to make a start...

Omni, I've got to go out soon. We're planning our next Alpha course ("Christianity for the Curious" would be an apt subtitle) An evangelists work is never done I'll respond in due course but you can expect me to approach it by inserting the word "subjective" before the word "good" above

Omni, I've got to go out soon. We're planning our next Alpha course ("Christianity for the Curious" would be an apt subtitle) An evangelists work is never done I'll respond in due course but you can expect me to approach it by inserting the word "subjective" before the word "good" above

Not so--you are playing fast and loose with the meaning of reasonableness, which at its heart premises reason. While one must perforce act on the basis of one's own beliefs, one is not acting reasonably when one is not acting rationally.The essence of the charge of unreaonableness in this thread, as I understand it, is that the rioters are acting irrationally, against their own interests and in contravention of their own stated beliefs.I would lay the same charge against Christian clinic bombers, the Isareli treatment of Palestinians, etc. One does not have to single out Muslims to find the current mob violence unreasonable.This message has been edited by Omnivorous, 02-06-2006 02:50 PM

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Of course you are. Your absolute lodestar would let you take no other tack.As you formulate your reply, keep in mind that the rioters, like you, are moral absolutists.I am still looking for historical instances of moral relativists rioting to protest the beliefs of others. Perhaps you can give me some help there as well.

---

"Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?"
-Sir Toby Belch, Twelfth Night Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!
---------------------------------------

Leftist protests during the 60s.