Haha very insightful post. Thanks for that
![Smile :) :)]()
I haven't quite absorbed it yet but just a couple of points.
1) I would disagree that modern society is based upon Judeo-Christian ethics. Our rights and liberties are derived from bthe complex processes of biological and cultural evolution. It's about rational thought and debate. I dont think that's necessarily religiously based however I would concur that religion has had a large impact on this.
2) I agree that separation of Church and state is the only absolute way of guaranteeing religious freedom and human rights for all. America is clearly NOT an example of this, certainly in it's modern form. I find it obscene that it is near impossible to get elected in the USA if you declare that you are an atheist. Also you can see a religious agenda in many political organisations like the tea party.
3) I think boris is a legend from an entertainment point of view. He would be AWFUL as prime minister.
4) The formation of the state of Israel happened and no one can change that. I welcome the formation of a place where Jews can live without persecution and with full freedom. However the british government laid the plans for Israels formation in the 1910s and essentially changed the demographic of a region without the consent of the people living there. That is not democracy
*************************************
Hey, Shy,
Thank you for your lovely and gracious response. I always appreciate when people are able to shoulder quite controversial subjects with both courage AND courtesy, as you have done. I'll take your points, in turn.
1.) Your first point, about the origins of our ethics, in Western civilization, seems to me to be mixed, in its import. On the one hand, you stoutly deny that our ethics are based upon the Judeo-Christian heritage; on the other, you concede that religion has had a large impact upon them.
I'll be clear as I can, about this. (Or at least, my sentiments thereupon), in propositional form.
*
Contra Richard Dawkins, and his ilk, I believe that biological evolution has nothing to do with the advancement of compassion. Nature (as Tennyson famously declared) is "red in tooth and claw", and exists in a state of perpetual violence. Shy, I don't know if you have had the opportunity to read Thomas Hobbes'
Leviathan ~ one of the great classics of our political literature ~ but, therein, Hobbes declared that, without the help of a strong government, to defend all against all, conflict is very likely to be universal, and extremely unpleasant, such that each of us shall be haunted by "continual fear, and danger of violent death", and that the life of man could only be, under natural circumstances, "nasty, brutish, and short."
*It is, I think, historically demonstrable that, in the great broad panorama of Indo-European history, from Hammurabi on - extreme cruelty in sovereignty and punishment, and subjugation of the individual to quite Procrustean group norms, was absolutely the rule. From the Iron Age, to the golden years of Athens, to the marble magnificence of Rome, itself: slavery, subjugation of the conquered, revenge, and exploitation of the weak, were invariably the rule. (Some North American Aboriginal elders will tell you that their societies developed a sense of corporate compassion long before European ones did, and there may be some merit to this idea - though I think it is, perhaps, an idealization.)
*I think it is also historically demonstrable that, within the canon of Western learning and law, Judaism was the first religion to systematically enshrine notions of fairness and justice and equity for all people, as matters of
moral responsibility. (The blessed - and in many ways wonderful - ancient Athenians, by contrast, believed in the concept of
arete ~ privilege based upon EXCELLENCE and honour.
*Christianity added to these precepts of Judaism, based on the precepts of its founder, an additional stress upon (though the concept is certainly not lacking in Judaism itself) the idea of compassion, and forgiveness. Needless to say, a great HOST of Christians have FAILED SPECTACULARLY in IMPLEMENTING these insights, over time. (Though some, like William Wilberforce, who helped lead the movement to abolish slavery, grasped them very well, indeed.
*In the final analysis - and I will put it to you, honestly, Shy, that I am a Cartesian dualist, in this matter - it seems to me that there is NO EVOLUTION of compassion, which stems from BIOLOGY, alone. If there is an evolution of CULTURE, as you suggest, in matters of morals, it doesn't emerge from a vacuum: rather, it is an historical artifact, and emerges completely (in our Western societies) from the Jewish emphasis upon fairness and justice; and the Christian emphasis upon mercy and compassion - and the struggle to realize these goals, as an holy obligation.
*Obviously, the failure of Western civilization to attain these goals has been a story of monumental failures. As you surely know, when Mahatma Gandhi was asked, "What do you think of Western civilization?", he replied, "I think it would be a GOOD IDEA." The wars, slaughters, abuses, and atrocities committed in the name of religion, in all our societies, are numerous, well-documented, and AWFUL.
*HOWEVER, the animating ideas have always been there, and have always inspired idealists. The idea that a single person has dignity in and of him- or -herself; the idea that slavery is abhorrent; the idea that women and children are just as important as men (and that women deserve the vote); and the idea that all races are equal. . . all of these ideas have been championed by people inspired by faith in the Judeo-Christian canon. . . in the Western world.
*So, IF there is a cultural evolution - and I agree that there is - it is coming from certain ROOTS, which can't be denied. And, of course, the Enlightenment and skepticism were an essential corrective to the hegemony of religion, in the 17th and 18th century, and even BEFORE. But even THESE correctives had roots in, and connections to, religious ideas. (So I would submit to you, Shy.)
***********************************
2.) I think we are in relative agreement, about the roles of Church, and State. In fairness to America, a LOT of America actually practices the separation of Church and State, quite scrupulously. (If you happen to live in a BLUE state, as opposed to a RED one.) Texas is, however, a different matter. But I am fully on board with the idea that, whether one is compelled by any religion, or NONE, one ought to be free to hold and cherish one's beliefs, and live one's life as one sees fit. However, I do think that in countries with historic religious establishments, like the U.K. and the Scandinavian countries, it is possible that a majority view (or acceptance of an historic heritage), can co-exist reasonably and comfortably with a great variety of religious opinions and practices, as long as there is liberality, and generosity.
********************************************************
3.) Thanks for your candid views about Boris. He's quite awful, really. You can just be thankful he's not Mayor Rob Ford, of Toronto ;-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89NpuEYHRhA
********************************************************
4.) Regarding the establishment of the State of Israel, I would say, Shy, that I think it was just and right, and in this respect - and I have taken a lot of flack for it on Facebook and elsewhere - I am a Zionist, and am unafraid to say so.
I think your narrative about the establishment of the State of Israel - though compassionate and concerned - is a little simplistic. This was not just "another bad thing the British did." The demographic changes were well under way by the time of Israel's foundation, due to mass immigration: and legitimate property purchases (made in good faith) as Ottoman landlords sought to exit the area. My sense is that the Jewish people who came to live in what is now Israel, came in good faith, and with no intention to hurt anyone - and were seeking only a safe place, in an historic homeland, where they would not be butchered, as they had been in Europe.
However, from my point of view, the Palestinian small farmers were sold out, TWICE: First, by Ottoman landlords, who sold their tenancies and evicted them without proper notice, in many cases; and second, by the surrounding Arab nations who made immediate war upon the new State of Israel (as a matter of ideology) and forced scores of people living in formerly safe circumstances, to flee as refugees - to Jordan, and elsewhere.
Shy, like most other reasonable people (I hope) - what I am hoping and praying for, is a two-state solution, which will accommodate both Israelis, and Palestinians. This is, I think, what has to happen, for all this ever to be resolved. The basics have been on the table, for two decades - ever since the Oslo Accord, of 1993. The Palestinian Authority, under Chairman Arafat, after first signing an accord: ultimately rejected this prospect, and (overtly or otherwise, and doubtless under the pressure of the terrorist organization, Hamas) reneged on the agreement, with the launch of new terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens. (And the recent rule of Hamas in Gaza has proven, I think incontestably, DISASTROUS - a regime of people who use public money and resources to build stealth-tunnels to capture Israeli citizens, and launch military attacks; who launch missiles as the response to every grievance; and who HIDE their missiles inside or beneath hospitals and mosques, so as to furnish their arsenals with vulnerable "human shields.")
At the same time, Shy, I am no fan of the policies of the Netanyahu government, which has continued to promote and build Israeli settlements in areas which WOULD BE (if there ever could be a peace agreement) Palestinian. Unlike Prime Ministers like Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, and even the old war-horse Ariel Sharon. . . who all gave the peace process the college try, Netanyahu has consistently been cold to the peace process.
I'll tell you something, Shy. The day Ariel Sharon had his crippling stroke - I wept. Because that man (who for sure wasn't perfect, and as you know, during the latter part of his career, major questions arose about his leadership - and some very awful questions, too). . . could have done it. He was one of the toughest generals Israel ever had, and an icon on the Israeli right. But he seemed determined to get the peace process into high gear, and get the problem SOLVED. And I think he could have done it, precisely because he had been (in his previous incarnations) so tough and mean.
Shall we say - it COULD have been a "Nixon in China" moment. For those who are too young to remember, the U.S. had been wanting, and needing, to re-open diplomatic and trade relations with Communist China, for a generation. No Democrat could ever do it, though - because he would have been seen as soft, and weak on Communism. Nixon, whose credentials as a FERVENT anti-Communist were impeccable, was able to achieve this
rapprochement, precisely BECAUSE he'd been such a "Red-baiter" all his life, no one could ever IMAGINE his ever giving up ANYTHING to Chairman Mao.
So, I think, it could have been, and would have been, with Sharon - if he had been able to get on with the programme he envisioned. He was getting close. He had broached the subject in all the major media. All the opinion polls were on his side. And then he had a crippling stroke, and things were back to square one, again. :-(((
***********************************************************
It's all very discouraging, Shy. I hope there will be movement toward some sort of modest solution, before I croak. Though it's hard to be optimistic.
In the meantime, I think it's important to remember that:
*While the Palestinian Authority, under Mahmoud Abbas, is taking gentle steps toward promoting the peace process - Hamas is a terrorist organization, dedicated to wiping Israel off the map.
*Israel is the Middle East's only democracy.
*Israel is the only country in the Middle East with freedom of the press, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
*Israel is the only country in the Middle East where it is SAFE to be openly Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Baha'i, atheist, or GAY.
*Israel is the only country in the Middle East where WOMEN are equal.
*Arab citizens of Israel, have full legal and political rights. They have elected members in the Knesset, the Israeli parliament. And there is a mosque adjoining the Knesset, for them to worship in.
*There is an Arab-Israeli member of Israel's Supreme Court - Mr. Justice Salim Joubran. In a 2013 ruling, he successfully disallowed a Likud party election advertisement as being inappropriate, because it was "racist. . . and disruptive to public order."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Joubran
*Though there is clear room for improvement, Arab-Israeli citizens enjoy a higher standard of living, better education, and better health-care, than most of their compatriots, in other Middle Eastern nations.
I think all this is worth noting, Shy, even as people line up to pile on, to Israel.
"A" XOXOXOXOXOXOXO
P.S. About the impact of religion on ethics, Shy - here is my specimen, #1, from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. (And I believe biology doesn't change history - but rather, that
human will and character, change history) And this is surely one of the greatest speeches ever given, in human history. And it is inspired, one hundred percent, by the Gospels:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smEqnnklfYs