Uncouth PerspectivesNot on the rug, man.

So I first saw this amazingly offensive campaign in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miULdI-qocg

Then these billboards apparently started popping up.

I only bring this up in light of Dr. George Tiller’s murder. While I’m not going to touch either side of the abortion argument, I have a strong sense of hypocrisy when I look at the contradictions in messages.

Murder in the name of God is not something unknown.  In fact, not only does it happen, but it appears to be quite condoned in (“Western”) religious texts.

For example, in a form of genocide, as recounted in the “Old Testament”:

16 But of the cities of these people, which the LORD thy God doth give thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth:

17 But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

Deutoronomy 20:16-17

Or perhaps this individual encouter, as recounted in The Book of Mormon, in which Nephi murders Laban:

10 And it came to pass that I was constrained by the Spirit that I should kill Laban; but I said in my heart: Never at any time have I shed the blood of man. And I shrunk and would that I might not slay him.

11 And the Spirit said unto me again: Behold the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands. Yea, and I also knew that he had sought to take away mine own life; yea, and he would not hearken unto the commandments of the Lord; and he also had taken away our property.

12 And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me again: Slay him, for the Lord hath delivered him into thy hands;

13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

…

18 Therefore I did obey the voice of the Spirit, and took Laban by the hair of the head, and I smote off his head with his own sword.

1 Nephi 4:10-13, 18

The point here is that, going by religious texts, murder and killing is not something outside of the realm of (“Western”) God’s will.

So what kind of hypocrisy is it so show images and make statements which imply that someone who doesn’t believe in God will kill?  I’m much more concerned by someone who feels a moral obligation to kill.  Take, for example, the writings of another famous abortion doctor killer, the Reverend Paul Hill:

The scriptures teach that when the government requires sin of its people that they “… must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29b). No human government can remove the individual’s duty to keep each of the Ten Commandments: these duties are inalienable. When the government, thus, will not defend the people’s children—as required by the Sixth Commandment—this duty necessarily reverts to the people. You don’t need the government’s permission before defending your own or your neighbor’s child. If the people’s children will not be defended by the government, they must be defended by the people, or they will not be defended at all.

And if you want your fellow citizens, and the government, to recognize this duty, you must assert it.  The outrage is not that some people use the means necessary to defend the unborn, but that since most people deny that this duty exists the government will not perform it on the people’s behalf.

If you haven’t read it, I highly encourage you to take a moment and read his article on why, how, and the aftermath of shooting and killing Dr. John Britton and his escort, James Barrett: http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot.html

But, here, let’s look at the truth of it.  Being Christian, for example, doesn’t make anyone more or less likely to kill any more than being an atheist or agnostic does.  Individual people make individual decisions and justify them by whatever means they want.

I think we should put more emphasis, as individuals, on our own value on life than on defeating our enemies.

Can a forced ideology be called morality?

What I am concerned with here when I say “forced ideology” is when an individual accepts an ideology because they were told to do so, whether this is from a personal authority figure, such as a parent, or something or someone more systemic, such as the military commander for drafted soldiers.  This should be contrasted to an ideology one rationally accepts, based on knowledge and self-reflection.  There is, of course, a very grey area here which is not easy to define, but I am currently most interested in a strong understanding of forced ideology.

If a person does a “good” act based on a belief system which they have not rationally accepted, is the act really good?  Or is the person good/moral?  If a child makes a conscience effort to not lie on Christmas Eve for fear of not getting presents from Santa (assuming the child has something to gain from lieing), has the child done good?

My instinct tells me no, the act is not necessarily morally good.  One may argue that refraining from lieing is an objective moral good and the intent plays no part.  I, however, cannot agree with this.  Discarding the objective/subjective arguments of morality for another day, I cannot believe actions should be divorced so coldly from intent.

At issue for me is “good” actions which are more based on routine or dogma as opposed to rational choice or desire.  However, it seems that this thought has implications on “evil” actions as well.  If blind acceptance to an ideology devalues the “good” of an action, then it must devalue the “evil” of an action.
If giving to the poor because you are told to do so is not a morally good action, then what about a solider who kills because he is told to do so?  Or perhaps to make it even more stark, what about a man who rapes a virgin for purification?

I have too strong an emotional response to such evil deeds and too strong a belief in individual responsibility to accept that.  But I have to admit that I do feel that the good acts are devalued because of this.   Perhaps this is just faulty thinking on my part, but I think it simply leads to a better conclusion.

It is blind acceptance that is the problem.  I believe that blind acceptance is intellectually criminal.  Individuals must have a personal and reasoned system of beliefs or they do not really have a belief system.  One of the real tests of a person’s character is how they act compared to what they believe in.  Those with a void for a true belief system (or an understood belief system) often find themselves doing things or acting in ways contrary to their ideology.  Or they act accordingly to their ideology but are miserable in the process.

Blind acceptance is an individual choice.  You might even say (in fact, I do) that it is a moral choice.  Not accepting responsibility for your beliefs or your actions does not make those beliefs or actions justifiable.

It just makes them stupid.

…just be good?

Even though I’ve studied it quite a bit, I have never understood why people argue that morals cannot be exclusive from a god / religion / whatever. The same-old “atheists have no morals” rhetoric.

Perhaps it is because those who express these feelings cannot control themselves?

I have to admit that the idea of people who cannot control themselves or urges being a part of something that gives enough structure to control those urges has great appeal to me… because hopefully those urges will be controlled. But I really feel that it needs to be something: a) substantative and b) not as bad or worse than the “urge.”

Also, one of the biggest problems is that the people who DO successful commit to something which makes their lives better or “beats the urge,” then often they try to push this on other people and/or when faces with an argument against the belief, they react poorly or violently. This is because the belief is more important in it’s ability to defeat the urge than in and of itself.

Take, for example, religion as the belief in this role. I’ve had great conversations with people who do not share the same religious beliefs as myself. Take, as another example, my doctor. My doctor is a very devout Christian and we have had very good discussions about religion. I don’t trust my life any less to him (…i hope) and we can have a very rational, friendly dialogue. But this is not always the case.

It is my theory that one of the greatest things in the way of pluralistic dialogue is the fact that many individuals belief is not based on the belief, in and of itself, but other factors, such as the belief acting as an agent against an urge or that “this is what the family believes so it’s what I believe.” The biggest problem with this is that when faced with challenges to the belief, even in casual dialogue, it’s hard for an individual to face disparate arguments.

It’s important to understand this. There are some people who you can be frank and open with, some you need to be more careful in how things are worded, and some who conversation may simply not be possible

Since I began writing on the topic of atheism, the landscape of who is involved in writing about or evangelizing atheism has changed dramatically. Today, there are “heroes” of atheism. Richard Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens. And many, many more. The ability to form virtual communities has obviously bolstered the atheism “community”–a group of people who are not likely to find people close-by through simply talking to another person on the street. There are no “atheist” churches, synagogues, etc. There are those of you who might claim there are and they are called “universities,” but this is just ignorant or hyperbole; universities are places to learn and thus you’ll find: a) a whole variety of views, be they atheist, theist, republican, democrat, etc. and b) people interested in learning.

However, with the rise of these heroes and apparently representatives of atheism, the issue of “what is” atheism is even more stark and apparent. Many Christians in America seem downright confused about what atheism is or is not and deservedly so, I ‘d have to say. Why? Because “atheism” describes a person who holds a single, particular view and does not describe the type of values a person holds. Some theologians would disagree with me here, but this is the point I have been making for years–you cannot judge an atheist by his/her stance on God but rather by his/her value (ethical) system.

So, as I read through atheist postings, I get so upset when I read atheists proclaiming “atheism means this or that.” Some (atheists) say atheists are modest, or ethical, or nice, or the like. And, as an atheist, I say this is absurd. Because, as I’ve said, being atheist has no bearing on these sorts of things. It may be a harder argument to make, but I believe it hurts our ability be relevant in conversations about morality if we say atheist = moral. Because if you can make the argument atheist = moral, you can make the argument atheist = immoral. Whereas, my argument is that atheist does not equal immoral NECESSARILY. This is an important distinction.

The are other dangers in this line of thinking as well. If one steps forward and makes blanket statements about, say, how atheists are moral people who just to be left alone and not force their views on anyone, this can be retorted with something smart-ass like “well, what about the Communists?” And, in the context of the original statement, the retort is appropriate. I’m an atheist. Stalin was an atheist. I and Stalin do not share the same values. Not only do I not want to make poor arguments, but I definitely don’t want to be lumped in with someone like Stalin.

Many would claim that our age, the world we live in, falls to this title.  We are in a time, they cry, that is ripe with immorality and rampant sexuality.

I would like to suggest that we are merely more aware of what has always been done. It is nothing new and, if there is any truth to the title, this has been a very, very long age.

And I truly believe many people have overlooked this. We are so criss-crossed in our sexuality that no answers seem clear… but the answers are there.

The answers lie in the fact that we, as conceptual human beings, do not deal well with duty-bound ethics. We, as thinking people, do not need to be protected from ourselves. We can learn and grow.

Yet, we need to embrace this characteristic as a truth to our existence. That we can learn and grow. We can do it. We can do it from living life. We can do it from others. We can do it together.

It is this, well, individualist togetherness that I think also escapes people. There is a schism in the thinking of people, a dichotomy, that has individual desires at one end and group ethics at the other.

Is this really the case? Does this dichotomy truly exist? I do not think so. I believe they actually work in tandem. We need to work, to learn, and to grow.

Rather than to classify one specific thing as wrong, let us worry about what is behind it. Instead of setting rules that say “this is exactly what to do”, let us educate. Let’s worry about life, not about specific actions which, without intent, may or may not be immoral, in and of them self.

Wherein we can also focus on our relationships. We can focus on fulfilling desires for the sake of … this individual togetherness. It is not as simple as physical pleasure, nor a simple mental bond.

Together, in a connection of the physical and mental, we can truly become one. Not with another, but through another. And one, in and of ourself.

We can love ourselves AND others.

LIVE.