The following emails were received primarily in response to last
week's Speech Is Either Free or It Isn't. Some
are also responding to Serial Sniper a Product of
Postmodern Moral Anarchy and The Beltway
Sniper, Moral Anarchy Letters. A few also reference Dan Knight's
Hatemail.
LEM Writings
From Jason:
Well said! I 100% agree with what you have said.
Don't let 'em get to you.
Kindest regards,
Jason
Hi Jason,
Thanks muchly for the thumbs-up.
Charles
Amazing!
From Jon L. Gardner:
My hat is off to you, sir. I appreciate you taking the slings and
arrows for the sake of the Truth. I never cease to be amazed by the
leftist mindset that allows people to believe the craziest stuff
. . . and get away with it! Taking guns away from law-abiding
citizens will cause criminals to spontaneously reform. Killing unborn
children is laudable, but killing rapists and murderers is
deplorable.
There is no absolute truth whatsoever, and I'm absolutely sure
you're hateful and evil. There are many paths to God, and yours is
wrong. Christianity is bunk because of the Inquisition, and Islam is
wonderful in spite of Osama bin Laden. That beltway wacko is an evil
terrorist, and don't you dare put "You shall not murder" out in public
anywhere. "Safe smoking" is a deplorable myth, and "safe sex" is great
for kindergartners (have a condom, kid!).
Good heavens, Charles, it makes me shake my head in wonderment on a
daily basis. It's so difficult to come up with a coherent response when
one is left speechless by the oxymoronic idiocy of it all, but you have
done a good job of it. Keep up the great work!
Jon
Thanks, Jon,
I'll try my best.
Charles
In Support of Your Most Recent Columns
From Stephen Landon:
Charles,
I did not finish reading either of your two columns as of yet, but I
agree with the sentiments that I have seen so far. I reserve my future
judgment, but I am happy to read good philosophical/political writings
in such a striking venue.
A little story. I recently took a class on eastern world geography,
and for my final project did a 30 minute presentation on the history of
Turkey. What struck me was how a civilization could be in existence for
hundreds of years, and then collapse and be no more. There were
somewhere around 10 civilizations that existed between 1700 BC and 2000 AD, some lasting 600
years, others lasting a mere generation. Initially, I looked at the
United States and our worldwide power and our short 228 year existence,
and I realized that there is a catalyst at some point in each
civilization's history where they either began to fade or reestablished
themselves. I feel that we are at or near that crux, not only as a
country, but as a global civilization.
I will comment more as I read your article. You definitely gave me
something substantial to chew on tonight. I hope you read this email
and get back to me with some thoughts.
Thanks for your time,
Steve Landon
Thanks for your comments Stephen.
I agree with you that Western civilization is at a
crisis point. I'm not terribly optimistic that we can turn things
around, but would be happy to be proved wrong.
Charles
Free Speech
From Thomas M Barclay:
Charles, I agree with you that "free" means "free." The best
expression of this, to my mind, remains Voltaire's: "I may not agree
with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to
do so."
And there's the crux of the issue. We've been seduced by the Dark
Side, by the myth of Total Victory.
What we need is a "Myth Of How To Get Along With People Who Are
Different Without Insisting They Be Just Like Us, And Without Being
Doormats Ourselves."
Possibly something like good manners and respect would come into
play . . . but this would be a hard sell in Hollywood - or on Election
Day.
You folks in the Commonwealth are troubled by one species of Thought
Police, the Offend No One variety. Down here in the States, we've got
another kind - the We Don't Like Your Kind Around Here And If You're
Smart You and Your (fill in the ad hominem attack of choice) Friends
Will Be Out Of Town Before Dark subspecies. Our kind tends toward a
thuggish and unlettered insistence that they've been swindled by "those
people." Your kind tends toward disdain, from what I've seen, and then
legislative action.
At least, upon occasion, your kind will willingly read a book, and
can do so without moving their lips.
Fascism is fascism, be it Socialist or National Socialist or
Christianist or Islamist or any other kind of MyWayOrElse-ist, so I
must disagree with you in part when you say, "Free-speech is under
siege seemingly everywhere these days, most insidiously under the
pretext of anti 'hate speech' and anti-discrimination legislation."
My take is that the most insidious assault upon free speech is that
of the Tribalists, who insist on dividing all populations into "us" and
"them." "Hate speech" goes a step further, telling us that "they"
deserve to die, that "they" are subhuman vermin who are not like "us"
but want to steal what we have and perhaps destroy "us" in the process.
From that insistence on difference have come the worst crimes of our
(mostly unread) history and the social ills that resulted. The only
cure, so far as I know, is The Golden Rule and what a Christian might
call The Law of Love.
According to people of both faith and humility, walking that walk
seems to be our duty.
I haven't seen many with the courage to take the daily hike, and I'm
not feeling too brave, lately, myself. I do hear some mightily loud and
insistent ranting voices of many beliefs and with many agendas. There's
an awful lot of "I-Me-Mine" in the noise and not much of the sound of
the sharing of abundance.
There's a difference between strength and power, and though this may
seem like a switch in topic, it isn't. Strength, I think, comes to us
from the Creator Spirit, and gives us the grace and ability to meet the
demands of this life in a fair, productive way and with a clear
conscience. More and more, I'm coming to think that power, i.e.
the ability and urge to change the world to suit us, is somehow sourced
from The Opposition.
So while I abominate hate speech and will call it what I think it
is, I will not oppose it by force. I may try, by word and example, to
persuade the speaker that "an eye for an eye" leaves us all blind.
While I may work for justice, I am not Justice myself. But I will go
get into the dialog.
I applaud your courage - and Dan's - for attempting this difficult
topic. People of good will have been hanging back lately, and it's time
to step forward again, with civility and with our diverse
viewpoints.
Maybe we can all work something out, together. Veni, creator
spiritus!
Tom Barclay
Hi Tom,
Thanks for the thoughtful dialogue. Voltaire's dictum
sums the operative principle up nicely.
Politeness and civility - Yes!
Genuine benevolence toward others - Yes!
However, none of those things exclude the obligation
to challenge, civilly and in good faith, ideas we believe are mistaken,
dangerous, and destructive.
Charles
A Modest Proposal...
From Katherine Keller:
Hi Guys,
First off, I really disagree with a lot of your politics. Charles,
you would've gotten a really long letter about your sniper article were
I not heading down a deadline. And I've got several things I'd love to
say about your free speech and political correctness articles. Again,
the deadline spares you the dreaded strike of my "Wand of
Sarcasm"™. ;)
On the other hand, I would like to suggest a way you could cheaply
and easily set up a "site" to espouse your political and religious
views. Have you not considered a UBB Bulletin board or a Delphi
forum?
- http://www.comicon.com/pulse/index2.shtml
When you click in any of the links, it takes you to an article
posted in a UBB forum
Such as:
And I'm linking you to that specific article for a reason.
Micah Wright also has his own Delphi Forum.
- http://forums.delphiforums.com/micahwright/
A lot of political commentary is linked or written there, with
subsequent discussion.
You probably won't like Micah's politics, but the format may appeal
to you.
Toodle Pip!
-Katherine-
Hi Katherine,
I live in socialist Canada (and write a lot of
newspaper columns on political/religious/cultural topics), so I'm used
to people disagreeing with my politics. ;-)
As Dan noted in his
article, he is working on the sort of website concept you're
proposing. Articles will still be linked from LEM, however.
If you get a breather from your workload and a spare
moment to comment, bring it on. I'd be interested in hearing your
views.
Charles
Charles W. Moore wrote:
"I live in socialist Canada (and write a lot of
newspaper columns on political/religious/cultural topics), so I'm used
to people disagreeing with my politics. ;-)"
Politically, I'm just slightly to the right of Michael Moore.
What I think the modern moral anarchy boils down to is that in
America most people overwhelmingly see examples of violence taught as
ways to solve problems. When in doubt, send the Marines!
Moreover, people are not taught to think in the US. Despite all the
trappings of rugged individualism, the reality is anti intellectualism
and herd mentality.
So when people see the unbridled (unpunished) greed on Wall Street,
the corruption of the churches, and the truth about those in power
. . . when their tiny little minds are shattered by the
largeness of the world outside it's catastrophic.
Morality does not come from having some church or politician say "do
this." That's blind, unthinking obedience. Morality comes as a result
of thinking.
Why is it wrong to kill? "God says not to." Ennnt! wrong answer,
thank you for playing, please try again.
Why is it wrong to kill? "Because it's the ultimate violation to
another's rights, causes extreme pain and anguish to others, and is
disruptive to society. If you are religious, then it means that you are
also 'playing God'." If you know why something is right/wrong,
if you have pondered the big questions in life then you are much more
likely to have something to fall back on when the storms of life blow
in.
I think that is more people were really, truly taught to think for
themselves and not just knee jerk react, the US and the world would be
a better place.
I know Atheists who are a lot more giving, compassionate, and truly
moral than the church twice a week "if you're not like us, you'll burn
in hell" Baptists that lived down the street from me when I grew up.
I've also known Atheists that were just as immoral and willfully
ignorant as the aforementioned Baptists.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and far far too many people
complete their formal education with just that, and no tools for how to
acquire more.
"As Dan noted in his article, he is working on the
sort of website concept you're proposing. Articles will still be linked
from LEM, however."
Totally. I was just suggesting a format which would make it possible
with a minimum of fuss on both of your behalves.
Talk to you later,
Katherine (Who thanks the Catholic Church for having taught her how
to think . . . though it ultimately led to her walking out
the door, having determined for herself that it was better to not go
than to attend and pay hypocritical lip service.)
Hi Katherine,
We're probably not as far apart in our views as you
might imagine, but if people are to be "taught to think," who is to do
the teaching and on what basis of authority?
"We live in a thought-world," wrote Saul Bellow in his
forward to Allan Bloom's The Closing Of The American Mind,
"and the thinking has gotten very bad indeed." Too
true.
I'm not against analytical thinking or
intellectualism. Perish the thought. However, thinking alone does not
guarantee that the conclusions reached will be constructive. I believe
that we need a ground of objective authority, and that God's revelation
of His law and His will in Scripture is it.
"I think I think, therefore I think I am," observed
Ambrose Bierce.
"It is hard labour to think," wrote E.J. Carnell, "if
you make people think they think, they will love you, but if you
actually make them think, they will not love you."
Søren Kierkegaard said he wrote "to make life
more difficult for people " - not out of mean-spiritedness, but because
he recognized that the worthwhile things in life are often not the easy
ones. They require thinking. Kierkegaard wasn't thanked for his trouble
- at least not in his own lifetime.
"Few people think more than two or three times a
year." observed George Bernard Shaw, "I have made an international
reputation for myself by thinking once or twice a week." Bertrand
Russell concurred, saying that: "Most people would die sooner than
think; in fact they do so."
The problem. :-(
Charles
Brilliant
From Jae:
Thanks for your column - world class, so not surprising that I heard
about it from a guy in Japan.
Brought tears to my eyes. The Christian haters are legion, eh?
Jae
It has ever been thus.
Charles
Excellent Work Mr. Moore!
From Pat
Mr. Moore,
First, you should know that I have the utmost respect and admiration
for you and Mr. Knight. The only author on LEM that I find valueless is
that Chris Atkins. His material offends me because it is utterly
useless. I don't find him funny or informative or helpful so guess what
I do? - I don't read his articles. It's a pretty simple solution
and is very effective.
On a deeper note, regarding Mr.
Bauer, I can only offer this caution:
We humans are creatures of hope and invention - both
of which belie the idea that things cannot be changed. However, we are
also prone to error.
People like Mr. Bauer inadvertently bring enough hate and
intolerance into the world making inevitable the things they so often
seek to avoid.
I don't agree with everything Dennis Miller of HBO has to say, but
he does get a few things right, and he is smart enough to close every
opinion piece with "That's just my opinion - I could be wrong." Which
is a damn sight better than Mr. Bauer's philosophy of "This is
my opinion and anyone who doesn't share my political alignment, beliefs
and attitude will be destroyed!" neo-nazi bullshit.
I'll keep a good thought and light a candle for you and Mr. Knight -
and in the hope that things can be changed.
Pat
Thanks Pat.
I hope things can be changed too.
Charles
Hate mail
From Terryn, Tom
Hi Dan (and Charles)
I just want to congratulate you on your article about hate-mail and
religious intolerance towards LEM. The person you mention in your
article went way across the line. It's one thing voicing your
opinion (which is the right of every man and woman in a democracy);
it's something totally different to start blackmailing people into
accepting your ideas. Good thing for voicing your concern about
this.
I have to admit that I, too, sometimes found Charles' writings
appearing on LEM a bit -let's say- "unfitting." Don't get me wrong.
Unlike many people I hear on this debate, I'm glad that a Mac
site is talking about other stuff - politics, religion, the economy -
and refuses to stick its head in the sand. (And I told as much to
Charles when mailing him at Applelinks). It's just that with
Charles' view getting most of the air-time-it was a bit one-sided.
Strangely enough, I tend to have less issues with Charles writings on
Applelinks. Maybe it's because I regard that thing as more of a
personal thing for Charles and John Farr. Maybe it's because there's
always a healthy discussion in the letter pages on the issues Charles
discusses. I guess it's a bit of both.
I have always found Charles to be a very open-minded, friendly man
(although we differ day and night in our political and religious
views), and I hope this issue will not deter him from writing further
articles like the ones on the Beltway sniper. Let me know when you guys
put up the "political" site. I'll be glad to join the discussion.
Tom Terryn
"Left-liberal semi-agnostic" :)
Belgium
Hi Tom,
I try to be open-minded and friendly, and you can rest
assured that I'll continue commenting on issues as I see them. I've
been engaged in these debates for some 35 years. I'm not likely to stop
now. ;-)
I should note that both of my recently controversial
columns on LEM were written for newspaper syndication here in Canada,
but Dan thought they merited posting to LEM, and I had no objection to
that.
We have published a lot of contrary-minded feedback
commentary as well.
I always enjoy your comments.
Charles
Free Speech
From dxtr:
Hi Charles,
Just read your article about free speech. I heard this in a movie
called The American President.
"You want free speech? Let's see you acknowledge a man
who's words make your blood boil, and who's standing center stage and
advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a
lifetime opposing at the top of yours."
Kind of stuck with me.
seeya
dxtr
Hi dxtr,
Michael Douglas, right?
I remember that one too. Good flick; good speech.
;-)
Or Voltaire's famous dictum: "I detest what you say;
but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
Charles
Hi Charles,
Michael Douglas is correct, I wish it was one of our real
Presidents! A couple of them did pretty good though.
"Once a government is committed to the principle of
silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that
is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes
a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where
everyone lives in fear." - Harry S. Truman, message to Congress,
August 8, 1950
"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with
unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive
values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth
and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its
people." - John F. Kennedy. Remarks made on the 20th anniversary
of the Voice of America at H.E.W. Auditorium, February 26, 1962
seeya
dxtr
Free Speech
From J. Scott Francken:
Bravo Charles!
Very eloquently put. I have been thinking this same thing about the
PC crowd for some time. It is much the same argument as the whole
"tolerance" issue. I find it ironic that the far left preaches
tolerance of everyone and everything - then they turn around and
proclaim that, for instance, Christianity is intolerant of other belief
systems (it is, by definition, but so what), and therefore they will
not tolerate Christianity to exist.
Doesn't anyone beside me see the irony of saying they are tolerant
of every belief system, but then being specifically intolerant of
one?
If you are going to be tolerant of all, you may have to tolerate
something you don't agree with. If you are going to support free
speech, you may have to allow some speech that is abhorrent to you. I
will defend the right of even someone like the white supremacists to
say what they want. That being said, I believe that you have the right
to say what you want. You don't necessarily have the right to be
heard.
Cheers for a great article.
Scott Francken
Hi Scott,
Thanks for the affirmative response.
It takes a special (although increasingly common,
alas) sort of addledness to be able to say with a straight face: "I
will not tolerate intolerance."
One point of disagreement: Christianity is not
inherently intolerant of other belief systems. It insists that they are
mistaken and that Christ (as He affirmed of Himself) is the unique Way
to eternal salvation, but there is nothing in essential Christian
doctrine that endorses either coercion or intolerance of contrary views
in our social interaction in this world. Disagreement is not
intolerance.
I think it is demonstrative that freedom of religion
exists, with very few exceptions, mainly in Christian and
post-Christian societies.
Charles
No disagreement at all. That was, in fact, what I meant to say. I guess
I was still in the mode of thinking how the other side thinks. The PC
crowd calls it intolerance of every other religion. I agree with you
that there is a difference between intolerance and merely believing
they are wrong. Funny how people who have grown up in the cocoon of
American liberties completely ignore that they can be tolerant of
everything because they are in a Judeo-Christian country.
So many of the other countries that have one dominant religion tend
to be very intolerant of other religions. I have known a lot of
missionaries who went to places like Egypt or central Africa or China,
and they had to be very careful about talking about their faith. In
some cases, just mentioning to the wrong person that they were
Christians would land them in prison or dead. Even recently, witness
the mass killings of Christians in Indonesia and other places, which
are largely Muslim countries.
Anyway, good article. I also read some of the stuff people have been
sending to your editor about this. It's crazy. I don't understand how
people think that they have a right to try to shut someone down just
because he doesn't publish what they want to see. Give me a break. It
is his web site, for crying out loud! Just because he calls it Low End
Mac doesn't mean that that is the only thing he can put on it. He could
call it "Bob's House of Macs" and then proceed to post only recipes for
Vietnamese food. Because it's his site. Sheesh. What a crazy world we
live in.
I sent a note to him to point out that I actually respect the site
for posting stuff "off-topic." I have a lot more respect for your
writing because I have seen that you can think about other things. You
aren't just a one-trick pony. So keep writing about Macs and whatever
else you feel like. Here's one reader who appreciates it.
Cheers,
Scott
Source for your PJ quote?
From Eric Richardson
What's the source for the PJ quote:
"Liberals aren't very interested in . . . real and
material freedoms. They have a more innocent - not to say toddler-like
- idea of freedom. Liberals want the freedom to put anything into their
mouths, to say bad words and to expose their private parts in art
museums . . . Liberals have invented whole college majors -
psychology, sociology, women's studies - to prove that nothing is
anybody's fault. . . . Consider how much you'd have to hate free will
to come up with a political platform that advocates killing unborn
babies but not convicted murderers. A callous pragmatist might favour
abortion and capital punishment. A devout Christian would sanction
neither. But it takes years of therapy to arrive at the liberal point
of view."
BTW, I differ with you on this point: Humans are not inherently evil
and sinful. In fact they are inherently created good. Fallen nature is
engrafted on later, after human creation. We inherit that, but we must
have faith that it is temporary. This is the goal of God's providence
of salvation, to remove the Fallen Nature. That which is salvaged
completely is restored to its original condition.
Jesus' divinity is in reality meaningless unless we also affirm
his humanity. Otherwise our desire to be Christlike would be
meaningless and the endless source of frustration for humanity for all
time. Jesus was not being facetious when he commanded that you must be
perfect as your heavenly father is perfect, and he affirmed the
divinity of humanity and Adam, when he affirmed the Old Testament
passage that humans are the Children of God and told those who called
him a blasphemer that the scriptures themselves said they are little
gods (though he also affirmed the dichotomous nature of humanity when
he reminded them who their false father is).
God created humanity with a purpose, and that will shall be
fulfilled with the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth, as it is in Heaven.
Jesus told you to pray for that. The fulfillment of that Kingdom should
remain your hope, and not the writing off of humanity as something
inherently different from their True Father.
Blessings on you. Your faith is an honor and inspiration to see.
Some other notes: The term "chicken hawk" was common in my father's
youth in the 20s. He tells the story of beating and driving from the
neighborhood of a man who was trying to entice one of my father's
childhood friends with extravagant gifts, so child porn and
exploitation are not new (and that is why it is very offensive to me
that liberals label the president and many in his cabinet "chicken
hawks." I am sure that this is intentional, and they try to redefine
the word with full knowledge of its other meaning and the additional
disrespect that they are showing). Child prostitution is not new,
either, and the white slavery laws were set up precisely because very
young children were being kidnapped and forced into prostitution in
other cities. At the time, the second killer of young married women
were STDs brought home by husbands that frequented prostitutes (the
first still being childbirth; the two are related of course). Finally,
my father mentioned before his death 8 years ago, after one of these
school shootings, that it couldn't be the guns. Every boy he knew when
he was growing up owned and shot guns.
Hi Eric,
We're not in disagreement at all about human nature.
The sinful nature was of course introduced with the rebellion and fall
from Grace. The state of Grace is restored through Christ's atoning
Sacrifice, but will only be fully realized when we join the Heavenly
company.
And Jesus was fully God and fully man (yet without
sin). viz: the Creed of Athanasian.
Moving along, I was given my first rifle when I was
12. Almost very other kid in our community had a gun, too. None of us
ever shot anyone or committed any sort of gun crime. Most homes in this
rural county have multiple guns. In the past 35+ years, to the best of
my recollection, there has been one murder in this municipality - in a
domestic dispute involving alcohol.
The PJ O'Rourke quote is from "Give War A Chance:
Eyewitness Accounts of Mankind's Struggle Against Tyranny, Injustice,
and Alcohol-free Beer" 1992. Atlantic Monthly Press. p. xxi
The book is highly recommended.
Charles
Christianity and Atheism
From Barry Oke:
Here is what I believe.
Tell me a wrong or selfish word that Jesus said in reference
to a better more loving and caring world which everyone is ultimately
desiring whether they admit it or not. This teaching alone tells me
that, Christian or not, your best interest is to have a world united
under Christ. What man on earth has a better ideal world in mind than
Jesus himself. You don't have to believe in Jesus but common sense and
the history of man will tell you that the more man tries to fix the
world the more he messes it up.
"War for peace?"
That's like using fire to cool something off.
The truth will be known soon, and all will be put in their
respective places.
I'm glad to say that mine will be under the best man that ever or
will ever live. If you live not for a higher meaning then you live only
for self gratification and advancement. If you have the capacity to
understand history and the vainness of all human based endeavors then
you would have no choice but to believe in a higher government than
man.
What a track record.
Indeed. There will never be any perfect human system.
Original sin precludes it.
Charles
Free Speech
From Mark
Free speech is very dangerous; it can make the speaker
irrelevant.
I've enjoyed your writings on PowerBook esoterica; I own a
WallStreet G3/233 myself. Sorry yours died. I never found out if you
fixed it.
I feel compelled to write you about your increasingly defensive
scribblings about . . . whatever. This latest one
about free speech is a hoot, but it does not address certain
burning issues, such as PowerBooks. Did you get a little tired of
writing about those boring old Macs? Heck, if I was in your place and
had built up a following of Mac fans by writing about Macs, maybe I too
would feel the need to just piss it away by broadcasting the central
facet of my life, even though it a) resonates like a brick to others
and b) cannot possibly be communicated in any case, as true faith is as
loud as a desert. You waste your time with nonbelievers. Language
fails, always, when the stakes are highest.
But have fun storming the decadent castle of "secular" humanism
anyway.
Best wishes,
Mark
Hi Mark,
Actually, I've been a journalistic commentator on
religion/culture/politics for a lot longer than I've been writing about
Macs - indeed since long before I owned any computer. As I've noted,
the columns that raised the brouhaha were syndicated newspaper columns
of mine that Dan chose to publish here.
Charles
Political Correctness - What Can We Do?
From J. R. Spencer:
Dear Mr. Moore
Your writings are wonderful! I have a sense that many of your
readers agree with most of what you write.
Now what can we do about these things that threaten our freedoms? I
believe that much of the apathy that exists in our society stems from
the helplessness or perceived inability to change things. Even on
rather in-depth news programs such as PBS' Newshour with Jim Lehrer -
you have pro or con - never a third or fourth opinion. Never a
suggestion that we might be able to effect change. Just "talking heads"
and pundits (mostly the same people week after week).
Please consider what we might do to have our opinions heard where it
matters. I have contacted my congresspersons and local officials to no
avail. When you are not a wealthy campaign supporter and contributor,
your opinion does not matter nor is it valued. Every member of our
family is a registered voter. We all exercise this privilege in every
general election or primary. Keep up the good work.
J.R. Spencer
Hi J.R.,
Good points.
Charles
Re: Lost Again
From Johannes Stripple:
Hi, thanks for you reply.
Yes, I am in agreement with you in the need to pose questions about
the constitutive practices of modern politics; in particular with the
practices of sovereign authorization of both politics and knowledge.
Hobbes has been regarded as an unreflected starting point instead of as
one particular kind of expression of that essential problem.
Hobbes articulated modern politics against theocracy and empire, and
you are not the first one who argues that his grounds are anything but
certain. However, the problem that you also share with, say, the
Frankfurt school, some feminist orientations, and many neoliberal
economists is that you try to (re)discover a firm foundation in
something, be that theology, ethics, economics-in-the-last-instance, or
any other extra political realm. But those grounds are anything but
certain and not more certain that Hobbes attempt that you want to
criticize.
I think it is actually quite bad philosophy to go about and
rabble-rouse on postmodernity and relativism, nihilism or even
anti-ethics from any presumed position of theology, rationality, or
modernity. Importantly, grounds for critique must be immanent rather
than transcendent.
I know you like irony . . .
I see three ironies in your writings. In reading your stuff, it
seems as you want to return to the cosmological, cultural, and
political codes of the "Great Chain of Being," which is, of course,
totally implausible. Descartes, Hobbes, and the rest constructed the
possibility of individual subjectivity on the ruins of empire,
feudalism, and Thomas Aquinas' synthesis of faith/reason. This platform
is (the first irony) also the platform (conceptually, ideologically and
politically) that you use and build upon in your writings.
Both the Hobbesian ground, as well as the Great Chain of Being, are
fragile grounds, and instead a more appropriate attitude is to be much
more modest overall and recognize the difficulties involved in making
such claims in general. That kind of attitude can not be shrugged off
with simple loose talk about "relativism" or, worse, "evilness."
An second irony is the similarity between your thomassian
epistemology and early Islam's close connections between faith and
reason. Fundamentalism is around the corner.
A third irony is that your are, in fact, much more modern than you
think you are. Your approach to the concept of culture builds on a
particular way of writing difference, on a distinctively modern
dualistic conceptualization of particularity, creating both a "them"
and a "we", building on distinctions such as self/other, subject/object
and here/there.
As far as epistemology goes, I am in gentle disagreement with you
although I recognize that we share a wish to problematize a specific
modern version of authorizing authority. However, when you use that
ground to construct flawed stories about homogenous separated
mega-subjects of history/politics called civilizations with an inherent
"logic of dueling" then it is not fun anymore; neither from an
empirical, conceptual or normative ground.
best regards
Johannes
Hi Johannes,
I'm no trained philosopher, although I have several
mentor friends who are.
My position is based in (catholic) theology,
and I'm not a thoroughgoing Thomist, although I have an appreciation of
his approach, including the fact that he leaned heavily on the work of
Islamic scholars Avicenna and Averroes, as well as, of course,
Aristotle, whom he referred to as "the old pagan."
Me modern? Probably so. I actually have a love/hate
relationship with liberalism. I aspire to be premodern.
Fundamentalist? I'll cop to that, too, in the
following context. Alarmed by the wave of theological liberalism
sweeping over North America during this century's first two decades,
several conservative American and British scholars published a
twelve-volume defense of doctrinal orthodoxy entitled The
Fundamentals.
Dr. J. Gresham Machen, professor of New Testament
Theology at Princeton Theological Seminary, followed up with his book
Christianity and Liberalism in 1923, in which he correctly
argued that "liberal Christianity", so-called, is not Christianity at
all but a new religion.
The fundamentals of the Christian faith, as defined
by Machen, et al., can be distilled into five essential
truths:
- the inspiration and inerrancy of Biblical Scripture
- the deity of Christ and His virgin birth
- the substitutionary atonement of Christ's death
- the literal resurrection of Christ from the dead
- the literal return of Christ.
If affirmation of these five points makes one a
fundamentalist, I am one.
Charles
Re: McMurtry's morality
From J. P. Medina
Mr. Moore:
Thank you for your reply. I concur; Lonesome Dove is a great
novel, and the others that followed were lesser lights.
A colleague of mine, a Seventh Day Adventist, claims she reads it at
least once a year to "reset her compass."
Best wishes, and hope to read your continuing columns,
JPM
Free Speech/Hate Mail
From Mike Schienle
Hi Dan and Charles -
I have to admit I didn't read the article that got Rick Bauer's
skivvies in a bunch, but I certainly intend to spend more time on your
site now that I have a better idea what your viewpoints are. I
certainly appreciate your views and especially enjoy seeing a liberal
ass-wipe being exposed for his ill-conceived efforts. I'll keep it
short and just want you to know that you've gained a closer following
from this reader.
Best regards,
Mike Schienle
Thanks Mike.
Charles
Your Thoughts on Moral Relativism
From John Buhrman:
I guess it's a known truth that when someone posts something the
least bit controversial, you are going to get a lot more negative
responses than positive ones. I would like to maybe tip the skills a
little more to the hopefully silent majority. I would like to commend
you for having the courage to write this piece when many who share your
beliefs fear the resulting backlash that you have weathered so
well.
When I was in my early teens, I rejected the Christianity I was
exposed to as a child. At the early age, I had this intellectual
snottiness that I knew better than the believers around me. Then as I
got older I saw more and more disbelievers, and I saw that this
attitude was untenable in the long run. I started to see that the world
around me could not continue without Christian morality and Christian
faith. I began to see that it made more sense for Christianity to be
valid than not.
Now I am a college student and see many of my peers tend toward
moral relativism. It does not surprise me that there are high levels of
hostility and depression on this campus. I hope these rebellious
teenagers will see what they give up with moral relativism.
Best,
John
Hi John,
Psychiatrist and best selling author M. Scott Peck
sees that there are four distinct levels of spiritual development. Here
are some excerpts about the two higher ones:
Peck's Stage 3 are the Skeptic/Individuals -
"principled, self-governing human beings who no longer depend on
institutions for governance," who, Peck says, "Include most doubters,
agnostics, and atheists."
Stage 3 includes most liberals and ecology-oriented
people, says Peck. They are usually committed and loving parents, often
scientists and truth-seekers, and if they seek truth deeply enough and
widely enough, "they do begin to find what they are looking for, and
get to fit enough pieces of truth to catch glimpses of the big picture
and see that it is not only very beautiful, but that it strangely
resembles many of those primitive myths and superstitions their Stage 2
parents and grandparents believed in." At which point they begin to
metamorphose into Stage 4,
Peck says that many teenagers are Stage 3 people, and
that while this stage isn't especially threatened by Stage 1s or Stage
2s whom they summarily write off as "superstitious idiots," Stage 4'
tend to rattle them, being apparently scientific-minded, "and know how
to write good footnotes, yet still somehow believe in this crazy God
business."
Peck calls his Stage 4 "Mystical/Communal," inhabited
by people who grasp the cohesion and wholeness beneath surface
appearances, who are comfortable with paradox and who embrace the
ambiguities of mystery that make matter-of-fact Stage 2s suspicious and
uncomfortable, and skeptical Stage 3s wary and contemptuous. Stage 4s
have a faith that passes understanding and a love that embraces
everything.
Charles
Allowable Speech
From Dean Arthur:
Prez Nixon's cabinet came up with a doozy in Senate Bill No. One:
any talk about acts which if performed would merit imprisonment upon
conviction of said acts, will merit one-half imprisonment time for
discussion of said acts. Talk about political correctness! And who says
the Constitution is still in full force? Bankruptees have no
Constitution. All US citizens have been bankrupt since 1965 as LBJ
chortled upon signing a particular bill into law, "When I append my
signature to this bill, no American will be able to pay his debts."
Your Article
From Russ Coffman:
We are all brought up differently. I was brought up believing that
if you can't say something nice about someone, don't say anything at
all. Behavior separates the lowlife you want to avoid being seen with
from the good people. In some circles, insulting some you never even
met - illogical and thus indicative of low reasoning power - is not
considered an embarrassing social blunder. Some even think it's
cool. But then, some people have no moral compass and are totally
devoid of traditional American values. They do not take personal
responsibility for their mean-spirited actions and blame everyone but
themselves for their real or imagined problems. They see nothing wrong
with their behavior due to their lack of that moral compass most of us
have, much as the sociopath thief sees nothing wrong with stealing.
That's what you article seems to be saying - "It's OK to be boorish,
rude, tactless, and insulting." Well, maybe in your circle of
friends it's OK. Birds of a feather . . .
"PC" is what used to be called "manners" and "politeness" before
Reagan and his uncivil ilk popularized rudeness. Some people simply
don't have 'em, and in a way it's good that today they expose their
lack of breeding, values, and character for all to see, so I say let
'em talk. What if someone saw you associating with these low-rent dregs
of society? How embarrassing that would be. Better that they
self-identify so they can be avoided and you can take your business to
those whose behavior demonstrates character and class. There will
always be those who simply can't function in a society, so the best one
can hope, perhaps, is to avoid them and avoid guilt by even accidental
association.
Funny you slant your article to condemn only the left. On the right,
you have those who want to ban flag burning, which is free speech and
hurts no one. Why should the extreme right get a pass? And they say
anyone who disagrees with that illiterate drunk in the White House
"must really hate America" in an attempt to stifle free speech. What's
next, concentration camps for those simply practicing democracy? If the
wimps can't take criticism, they should move to Iran where it's
acceptable and legal to stifle dissent. Maybe they'd be happier there
amongst the like-minded.
I just don't see what the uncivil hope to accomplish with hateful
talk. How does such antisocial behavior make America a better place?
Where are the pluses in being a low-rent misfit no decent person would
give the time of day? Does the glee infantile name-calling brings to
those on the right more than offset the misery it brings to everyone
else, resulting in a net gain for good in the world? Is win-lose
behavior superior to win-win? I like to ask myself "What did I do today
to make the world a better place?" What do those people ask themselves,
"Whose life did I try to make miserable today by being rude?"
Last night I went to the local premiere of a documentary on the song
"Strange Fruit," originally sung by Billie Holliday to protest lynching
by Southern conservatives. I wish every person who enjoys and even
promotes hateful talk could see it to see where such behavior
eventually leads: murder. Actions have consequences. Lots of footage of
every Republican's favorite poster boy Strom Thurmond spewin' his
venomous hate. It'll be on PBS next Spring. I learned that
conservatives filibustered anti-lynching laws in Congress in the 1930s
and 1940s. What nice folks they are - the kind of people you hope your
daughter brings home to dinner. (The reason a federal law was sought
was because no one was ever convicted of murder by lynching at the
state level - never. If you voted guilty, those conservatives of
questionable character would lynch you.)
I take it you're not a Christian. Jesus said in Timothy-something
that "As a man speaks from his mouth, so does he feel in his heart.
Those who speak ill of others will be held accountable on Judgment
Day." I think it's great they'll get theirs. While those of us with
manners, class, tact, and grace are sitting on clouds, I like to think
the rest will spend an extra million years or so in Purgatory for
trying to make the world worse than it already is.
Jonathan Rauch sounds like a model citizen with a lot of upbringing
and class, someone who lives to make the world a better place for all.
Must follow Jesus' word to the letter. A real role model for our kids,
huh?
If you're offended by any of the above, "Too bad, but you'll live."
I criticize only behavior, which can be changed, not the person. You
are what you say, as Jesus said.
Have fun in Hell with your conservative buddies,
Russ Coffman
Hi Russ,
What a charming sign off! And you have the audacity to
accuse others of being mean spirited. Does this you mean you believe
there actually is a hell? There may be hope for you yet.
Political correctness is only "polite" when others
agree with politically correct dogma. Contradict the politically
correct, and you are guaranteed of getting a snootfull of distinctly
impolite responses. Political correctness is based in an emotionally
sentimental view of the world, and, as Carl Jung sagely observed,
"Sentimentality is a thin veneer covering brutality."
There are certainly some nasty conservatives, but in
my experience most conservatives, because of their relatively modest
expectations regarding human potential, tend to be more charitable and
forgiving with respect to their liberal adversaries' motives than
obtains in the reciprocal.
Thomas Sowell's insightful book, A Conflict of
Visions, examines what he calls "the unconstrained vision"
(leftism/liberalism) versus "the constrained vision"
(rightism/conservatism). Mr. Sowell writes:
"Each must regard the other as mistaken, but the
perceived reasons for the 'mistake' are different.
"For the unconstrained vision, the presence of highly
educated and intelligent people diametrically opposed to policies and
theories aimed at advancing what the unconstrained see as the
unequivocal common good amounts to an intellectual puzzle, a moral
outrage, or both. Implications of bad faith, venality, and intellectual
deficiencies are much more common in the unconstrained critique of the
constrained vision than vice versa. They consider the constrained to be
moral lepers."
"For the constrained," Sowell continues, "with their
much more modest expectations of human potential, failure is expected,
so there is considerably less necessity to regard the 'mistaken'
adversary as morally or intellectually deficient. The constrained tend
to categorize their polar adversaries as well-meaning but mistaken to
unrealistic in their conceptions, and seldom suggest that they are
deliberately opposing the common good or are too stupid to recognize
it. They consider opponents to be single-minded idealists."
I am actually enthusiastic advocate of politeness and
kindly spiritedness. My defense of free speech does not imply approval
of mean and hateful expression - only that once you start arbitrarily
selecting what sort of speech is allowable and what isn't, free speech
ceases to exist.
As for your implication that Christians have no
legitimacy delivering negative critique, Christ is not always a
"polite" guy in the sense that the politically correct define "polite."
Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send peace: I came not to send
peace but a sword." He called the Pharisees a "brood of vipers" "and
"whitewashed grave sites," and he physically attacked Temple money
changers with a whip He made with His own hands. He promised that he
would send angels to gather up those who do iniquity and "cast them
into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of
teeth."
Jonathan Rauch, by the way, is Jewish and a
self-avowed homosexual, and I'm sure he would describe himself as a
liberal, albeit an old-school, non politically correct one.
Commenting on the rise of political correctness
totalitarianism American social Rauch notes that "the central
regulation of debate and inquiry is returning to respectability - this
time in humanitarian disguise & the old principle of the
Inquisition is being revived: people who hold wrong and hurtful
opinions should be punished for the good of society....
"Harsh, even vicious criticism spurs just the sort of
debate which turns the heat of conflict into the light of knowledge.
And so silencing strong criticism does not 'balance' an argument; it
eviscerates it."
Words to live by.
Charles
Re: Free Speech
From Andrew Yaeger:
I just finished reading your column "Speech Is Free or It Isn't" on
Low End Mac. I like your viewpoints, as they are always
thought-provoking. I've always wondered why you place articles about
issues not related to the Mac or the computing industry, but that is
not the purpose of my letter.
First, I want to say that I agree with your statement. In order to
have free speech, it must also ensure the freedom to say things that
may be disagreeable to many or most of the people to whom this freedom
is allowed. Just because one is in the minority does not mean they
should be silenced.
I have always known that in order to have truly free speech, as
distasteful as it is, we must allow hate groups to also have that same
right.
Political correctness was taken to such an extreme that it became
wrong to call people fat, short, or mentally retarded - they are now
the weight challenged, height challenged, and the developmentally
disabled.
I will always defend people's right to say whatever they want. No
one has to listen or agree. I worked for a humor magazine once, and I
know how humor can raise people's ire and make them think that is an
attack on them or their viewpoint when it is simply satire.
That brings me to my question: Phoenix "shock" disc jockey Beau
Duran called the widow of St. Louis Cardinal's pitcher Darryl Kile and
asked her if she had a date to the game. See this article in CNN for
the complete story: http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Music/10/12/shock.jocks.ap/
Do you think it was at all a violation of her rights?
This was not even three months after he had died. I had an argument
with a friend about this. He thinks the DJ should not have been fired
or even disciplined. He felt the wife of a celebrity should be able to
stand up to this. I actually found myself disagreeing. I understand
that he had to the right to say what he said but considering that he
was calling a widow at home, I felt like it was an invasion of her
rights. I said if they thought that was such a funny joke they could
have made an impersonation and let the audience to believe that
conversation was real. (I've heard this done many times on these
shows.)
This way they wouldn't be intentionally hurting the feelings of an
individual for the sake of entertainment. I realize after reading your
article and giving the topic much thought, that my friend may have been
right. While the joke may have been in the worst taste possible, it may
not be something he should have been fired for. His job is to
entertain, and perhaps his audience finds this sort of humor
entertaining. Those who feel that it isn't funny just wrong can turn it
off or turn the dial.
One more thought: Is there any limit? Can radio personnel make jokes
like "Let's go kill the ___s (fill in any ethnic group)?" (I have heard
Howard Stern and others seemingly perpetuate racial and ethnic hatred
through an obvious mockery of prejudice that some callers are too
stupid to realize is a mockery).
Please share your thoughts with me on this.
Thank you,
Andrew
Hi Andrew,
It is specific cases like this that make unqualified
free speech advocacy tough. I utterly revile the repugnant behavior of
Beau Duran in the incident you cite. It was gratuitous and inexcusable.
However, I would object to him being prosecuted under the law for doing
it.
On the other hand, I don't think that his firing from
the radio station is really a free speech issue. I would say that his
employer had a legitimate right to set minimum standards of behavior
for its employees in the workplace. I'm doubtful that a radio station
that employs "shock jock" on air personalities occupies any moral high
ground, but firing Mr. Duran for his stupid and disgusting prank did
not infringe on his right of free speech.
Charles
Well, You've Got a Replacement
From Kevin S. Willis
Charles,
In regards to the email from David Jackson responding to your
article on the sniper, where he says:
"This article did accomplish one positive thing. It
pretty much convinced me that Low End Mac isn't where I need to be
going for my Macintosh information."
Well, I've got to tell you the reverse - a friend referred me to
this article, and it convinced me that Low End Mac is were I need to be
going for my Macintosh information.
As a former secular humanist and atheist, I feel ashamed reading the
sort of self-righteous, self-sufficient, I've-got-all-the-answers
fire-and-brimstone from the secular pulpit that I myself engaged in far
too much for far too long before coming to Christ about three months
ago. While a political and social conservative for years, I still
resisted surrendering to the foundation of what I could see what was
morally, ethically, fiscally and socially sound. Recent difficulties
(which I shortly realized to be gifts from God, such as being obligated
to depart an environment almost entirely populated with atheists and
self-justifying, self-centered secular humanist principles) finally
opened my eyes to the truth about Jesus Christ.
Having come from the secular world so recently, I came with a broken
spirit and an open heart to the Gospels and the words of Jesus Christ.
And the goodness, the very rightness has been overwhelming.
When David Jackson says to you: "Had it continued a few more
paragraphs I would certainly have expected an 'AIDS is God's
punishment' implication in there somewhere," I can either assume he has
not read or does not understand the Gospels, and, quite frankly, wasn't
paying much attention to you.
Jesus ministered to the afflicted. The Pharisees might say a disease
or illness was punishment. From what I can tell, and I've got a long
way to go as a Christian, Jesus showed mercy to the afflicted and to
the sinner. Jesus called his disciples to know Him, in part, by
ministering to the afflicted, not by punishing them or exalting
themselves.
While it is true that, even today, there are those who are
Christians who condemn others and exalt themselves, who call themselves
Christian but behave more like the Pharisees, my experience as a
longtime atheist in going to church, truly listening to Christian
radio, reading Christian books, finding sermons on the Web, and so on
is that those who proclaim themselves Christians do not sit in
judgment. They acknowledge they are sinners. They pray for the grace of
God so that they can do His will.
My church is involved in numerous ministries and the pastor wants to
do much more - to feed the hungry, to help the poor, to spread the Good
News. Since I have been attending church after coming to Christ, I
haven't heard a sermon condemning anybody. All I've heard is
good will and prayer and about the mercy and love - and also the will
and the high moral standards - of Jesus Christ.
When I listen to the local Christian radio station, there are often
challenging questions and provoking insights for the listener, but not
judgment, and certainly not self-righteousness (that I've heard,
anyway). There is an abiding love of and faith in God. There are clear
moral standards. But it's amazing - the Christian music station has the
most positive music you can hear on the radio, period, about anything.
The Christian talk station is, again, one of the most positive stations
I can listen to. And I've yet to hear anyone acclaim themselves, or
hold themselves up as examples of piety - they lavish praise on their
friends and colleagues for their hard work, and then give the glory to
God.
The point being, the Christians presented by your numerous secular
respondents often seem to be either very narrow/slanted portraits, or
outright parodies. Certainly, I've known more than one secular
humanists to point with righteous indignation to Fred Phelps: http://www.godhatesfags.com/
But, well . . . I don't know, but I think he's missed the Good News
of the Gospels. Rather than look to people like Phelps or even Jerry
Falwell or the evils done in the name of the church, I tend to urge
people to pick up the Book and read the Gospels themselves. It's been a
big part of my becoming a Christian: getting past the hype, and
actually going back and reading with an open heart and a broken spirit
what Jesus Christ had to say to all of us.
Keep up the good work. From what I've seen, most Christians are a
lot more like you than the parodies of Christians presented by most of
your secular readers.
All the best,
Kevin S. Willis
Thanks for the endorsement and support, Kevin, and
welcome to the Church, If I can presume to say that as someone who has
been a Christian for 30 + years. You seem to have an excellent grasp of
the principles of the Gospel.
Charles
Free Speech
From Craig Cox:
Charles,
A few quotes:
The most dangerous man to any government is the man
who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the
prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the
conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and
intolerable. - H. L. Mencken
Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The
obedient must be slaves. - Henry David Thoreau
They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety. - Benjamin
Franklin
During times of universal deceit, telling the truth
becomes a revolutionary act. - George Orwell
If you do not say a thing in an irritating way you may
as well not say it at all, because people will not trouble themselves
about anything that does not trouble them. - George Bernard
Shaw
Great is truth, but still greater, from a practical
point of view, is silence about truth. By simply not mentioning certain
subjects&totalitarian propagandists have influenced {public}
opinion much more effectively than they could have done by the most
eloquent denunciations. - Aldous Huxley, Brave New
World
The arts of power and its minions are the same in all
countries and in all ages. It marks its victim; denounces it; and
excites the public odium and the public hatred, to conceal its own
abuses and encroachments. - Henry Clay, 1834
Terrorism is escalating to the point that Americans
soon may have to choose between civil liberties and more intrusive
means of protection. - William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense
under President William J. Clinton, reported in Army Times,
10/27/98
How fortunate for governments that the people they
administer don't think. - Adolf Hitler
The one means that wins the easiest victory over
reason: fear and force. - Adolph Hitler, 1924
If you give me six lines written by the most honest
man, I will find something in them to hang him. - Cardinal
Richelieu
In other words, keep up the work defending the right to speak as one
sees fit. Free speech is free speech, period.
Regards,
Craig Cox
Nice collection of thoughts, Craig.
Charles
Re: The Beltway Sniper, Moral Anarchy Letters
From Clint:
Charles,
Thanks for your work for the Kingdom.
I agree with your assessment of modern society and the Truth of the
Gospels. It is interesting to me that most of the people who responded
said they were moral. Makes me wonder (not really) why they don't
accept Christ and inherit the promises of God. I also wonder (really)
if they would respect the sniper's beliefs if he believes he isn't
doing anything immoral? (of course they wouldn't, but they wouldn't be
able to justify their condemnation of the shootings either)
As I was reading some of the responses in The
Beltway Sniper, Moral Anarchy Letters, I couldn't help but think
that those people who believe in Universal Salvation haven't read some
of these letters. Especially the one where the writer called God a myth
. . . won't he be surprised. It does, however, bring up the question of
how we are to reach these people for Christ. Not an easy task. I'm glad
you are doing your part.
Keep fighting the good fight.
Clint.
Thanks, Clint.
Charles
Re: Serial Sniper a Product of Postmodern Moral Anarchy
From Jay Austin:
Hi Charles,
Unless you believe - and most Christians I know do not - that it's
possible to create utopia here on earth, then each society is going to
produce its own brand of bogeymen.... That's still a far cry from
saying that everything is relative, because even from our different
perspectives, we probably can converge on something closely resembling
"thou shalt not kill." We might even agree that society is best off
steering a middle course somewhere between overzealous theocrats and
antisocial psychopaths, and that fighting both kinds of evil is
not mutually exclusive. Where we likely differ is in the solutions to
these problems, but those differences can be worked out at the ballot
box, in our interactions with like- and opposite-minded citizens, and
in exchanges like this one. And I'm still failing to see the
role of revealed truth or a sacred text - unless you count the
Constitution.
The sniper case raises a whole host of issues, not just moral ones.
You're right that such incidents are becoming more commonplace, but
it's also true that they still seem to be a primarily, though not
uniquely, American phenomenon. It's the question that Michael
Moore (no relation, right? ;-) ) asks in his new movie: how
can such an otherwise friendly, even God-fearing, country have such a
hideous affliction of gun violence?
Is it lax gun laws and ready access to weapons? Maybe, but Canada
apparently has twice as many guns per capita or per household, and
nothing like the same problem. Is it our fascination with ultra-violent
movies, TV, video games, etc.? Maybe, but the US exports that stuff
everywhere in the world, without the same results (at least not
yet).
Is it the decline of Christian values, as you suggest? Maybe, but
I'll bet that a map of gun incidents in the US would correlate pretty
strongly with our "Bible Belt"; in contrast, Western Europe, which
arguably has become far more secular, doesn't know from
guns.
How about rampant militarism? It looks like this sniper had
considerable exposure to US Army "culture"; but that (like the four
separate cases at Fort Bragg of soldiers returning from Afghanistan and
murdering their wives) isn't something our government is too anxious to
talk about.
As messy and unsatisfying as it sounds, I'm left thinking that both
societal trends and individual cases result from a whole host of
factors, and can only be countered with reference to the same
institutions that may have helped create them - including the criminal
justice system that you dismiss. These may be "compost" to you, but I
still find them preferable to most attempts to date to replant the
Garden of Eden.
By the way, I agree completely when you put Nietzsche in a pivotal
place in modern intellectual history. But even Nietzsche didn't claim
that his attempt to expose Christian morality as man-made meant that it
was worthless or unfounded. At the very least, he thought that it had
evolved from a set of useful customs that helped preserve the species
(in so arguing, he opened the door for much of modern sociology and
anthropology). But he no longer found this to be a worthwhile goal, and
so had no patience for modern refinements like constitutional
democracy, civic religion, or "the greatest good for the greatest
number." He denounced these as mere "herd morality," or the ethics of
"the last men," in the same way that some Christians speak derisively
of mere "social engineering." They denounce modern society because they
think we're trying to usurp God's role; Nietzsche denounces it because
he thinks we're not going far enough in usurping God's role!
What I find problematic in Nietzsche is not his secularism, but his
radical individualism - "self-creation" seems fine for artists and
actors, less so for snipers - and I'd just as soon dispense with the
comparisons to God altogether.
Anyway, thanks for providing some interesting food for thought.
Regards,
Jay
(Im)moral Sniper?
From Peter Wall:
Charles,
You said,
I'm confident that the sniper's victims and their
families wouldn't give a shit whether the SOB was a better person for
it or not. Just thankful that staunch Christian morality deterred him
from his depraved rampage.
I'm sure you're right about the sniper's victims and their families
and how they would feel. But that doesn't justify Christian morality in
every case, or as the kind of social guidance by consensus you
advocate.
If all potential acts of depravity were deterred by Christian
morality, the ability of the individual to rationalize its own social
ethics would be lost, or at least masked, to borrow Jung's
terminology.
While I'm sure we could jump from case to case, and say that "Here,
strict Christian morality would have fixed the problem," or "There, a
good wallop of Christian morality would set things straight," we would
still make no case for Christianity as a compulsory moral system to
guide our society.
In the mean time, compulsory morality makes for a decent set of
ethical "training wheels" for social learners (like children) and those
who may not have the capability to reason out their own ethics (like
the mentally retarded). As for everyone else, especially all the adult
Christians who ought to grow up and think for themselves, it's a wholly
unhealthy way to live.
Peter Wall
Hi Peter,
Who said anything about "compulsory morality?" Not me.
The very essence of Christian teaching is free will.
I'm talking about community standards, which used to
be based on Christian morality - and still partly are by default, but
to a much lesser degree than they used to be, which I believe is
related to the decline in public morality and civility in our
culture.
The issue that you haven't addressed is where do moral
standards come from? I don't believe that they just materialize out of
thin air, but then that is the crux of the dissonance between the
liberal humanist and Christian worldviews.
Charles
Gun Education, Not Gun Restriction
From Chris Manley:
Hi Charles,
I just wanted to say a little in regards to your
article about the sniper(s) and moral anarchy.
Something I have been thinking about for the last few years due to
the level of gun violence in America is that it seems the best
solution, or at least a good first step, should be to teach gun safety
in our schools. We teach sex in our schools; hell, we are even teaching
homosexuality in some schools apparently.
Instead of banning guns, why don't we put gun use into a perspective
that is unknown in places like New York or any inner city, I suppose. I
am from the South. Down here we have had a tradition, at least up until
the late 80s, I would say, of passing down guns through the family and
also passing down some degree of responsibility of proper gun use. I
remember in 1980 when my grandfather bought me my first BB gun. It came
with a warning not to point the gun at people, that it is wrong and
dangerous, that this is a weapon, you don't shoot people.
Also, I should say that this has been my experience with toy guns as
well. Upon pretending to shoot people with my various toy guns, people
were always telling me not to point even a toy gun at other people.
My grandfather had a shot gun and .22 caliber rifle on his wall. I
respected those as weapons partly because I knew their danger and
partly because they were heirlooms. This tradition continued when I
went into the Marine Corps. We learned the four rules of engagement,
among them "do not point a weapon at anything you do not intend to
kill." I saw plenty of guys from New York and the like who had not
grown up with the values of proper gun use that I had received. After
rifle week they were thoroughly immersed in proper respect for their
rifles. They understood the context of using a gun.
Kids growing up in the inner city or parts of the country that do
not have a tradition of guns and proper gun use and the respect that
goes with it tend to first experience guns in the form of hand guns
that some other kid bought at a pawn shop. This situation is totally
devoid of a history, kinship, or guidance.
These liberals need to stop jerking their knees and get responsible.
Yes, there are people who live in the South and use guns and are not
responsible. But this is all the more reason to teach proper respect
for guns and weapons in general in a public place that our kids are
already required to attend - school.
Ignorance is always going to lead to irresponsibility, no matter
what one is dealing with. Taking guns away from responsible adults is
not going to keep kids from getting injured when confronted with a gun
or anything else that can harm, nor is it going prevent weirdoes with
bad households, lack of guidance, or a chip on their shoulder from
deliberately walking into public and opening fire.
Maybe, though, a number of kids would be prevented from using guns
violently if they get the teaching they would not get from their
parents.
Liberals fully support these commercials on TV that say to talk to
your parents about drugs or sex. Why not do this for guns?
Thank You
Chris Manley
Good idea. I remember reading somewhere about just
such a program in one of the large Texas cities with inner-city kids.
The outcomes were very favorable, as I recall.
Charles
Moral decay.
From Ed Hurtley
I'm not going to comment on the whole article, just the
beginning:
"Consider some terms virtually unknown 50-60 years ago
or describing phenomena that, if explained, would have bewildered and
horrified most people then or disgusted them with euphemistic
dishonesty: school shootings, serial killer, drive by shooting, drug
culture, child pornography, child prostitution, home invasion robbery,
road rage, etc., ad nauseam."
They (almost) all existed 50-60 years ago, we just didn't have
catchy titles for them. Yes, each is happening more often now, but the
population is significantly greater as well.
There were shootings at schools, albeit fewer due to less readily
accessible weapons. In fact, a study a couple years ago (unfortunately,
I cannot find it now) showed that even taking into account the deaths
at all the recent school shootings, murders at schools has gone
down in the last 50 years, consistently.)
There were serial killers, they just make the news every time now.
(The fact that many serial killers do so "in the name of God" is an
even more despicable joke.)
Drive by shootings were uncommon simply because cars weren't
"universal." Look at Al Capone and the mob for examples of drive by
shootings.
Drug culture? There has always been "drug culture," it's just the
criminalization of drugs that causes drug users to turn to crime.
Child pornography is a problem that has been around since before the
word pornography was invented. Again, it's technology that has caused
its rise, not moral decay. (i.e. The same people would be
pornographers, with or without technology. They just are more obvious
now, and, I might add, easier to catch because of it.)
Child prostitution is equally old. As long as there have been
prostitutes, there have been children forced into that line of work.
(The ancient Greek culture especially so.)
"Home Invasion Robbery" is just a new name on the same old
crime.
I will agree that morality as a whole has been loosening recently,
but I do not blame it on "de-Christian-ing," but rather on moral
laziness of all, including Christians. The answer isn't trying to force
people to behave the way one single faith wants you to behave, because
that will cause greater rifts. It is to find the commonality in
morality of all faiths, and embrace the commonality.
Personally? I am "roughly Christian." I do not follow the beliefs of
any of the structured Christian churches that I have seen; I follow,
much more closely, the teachings of Jesus. I believe in the free will
of man; that kindness is the answer, not force or hostility; and that
Jesus is the final arbiter of the fate of an individual. Trying to
force one to believe will do nothing. Presenting the facts, and letting
someone decide on their own is best. And I see Jews and Muslims as
believers in the same faith. Islam is much closer to Christianity than
most realize. They believe that Mohammed came later and clarified
Jesus' teachings. (Yes, that's a simplification, but it is basically
the truth.)
Ed Hurtley
Hi Ed,
I have to respectfully disagree. I have been a news
junkie since I could read, and I lived through the 1950s and 1960s.
This kind of stuff simply did not go on then to any major degree.
Your universalist theology is unfortunately not
unusual these days, but it is utterly contradictory of the Christian
Gospel and of what Jesus said of himself: "I am the Way, the Truth, and
the Life; No one comes to the Father but by me."
Charles
Guns etc.
From Stephen Landon:
Well, I still haven't made it through your whole series, but
I thought I might offer you the fruits of some of my research (even
though you do seem very researched on your own) as well as the
finished research paper when it is done.
Scroll to the bottom after the dashed for something you might find
interesting.
My thesis is (not final wording):
The Second Amendment to the Bill Of Rights is as written wholly
inadequate in protecting the lives and liberties of the citizens of our
country, and should be amended.
What I plan on establishing is that the "Well organized Militia" is
not the national guard, but is, as the federal and states
constitution claim, all males from the ages of 18-55 years old. That
taking away the right of any segment of the population to defend itself
either from a common threat (Beltway sniper) and a personal threat
should not be allowed.
A stronger amendment should be proposed that insures the public:
A: its right to defend itself (indeed its responsibility) from both
danger personal and public B: The establishment of a structured
militia system. They don't need to be armed and don't need to be
compulsory.... The things that the militia would be rising up against
should be enough motivation. C: Maybe more.... Still working on it.
Can you imagine how much easier it would have been to catch these
evil individuals if private citizens were activated to stand watch with
cellphones and video cameras at logical targets? The militias should be
allowed to be armed, but you don't even need an armed militia to deal
with most situations.
You might already know this, but the Israelis are a great example of
a well armed God fearing society. Each Israeli citizen serves in the
military and keeps a fully automatic assault rifle in their
house. I don't have the numbers, but the crime rates per capita in
Israel are almost nonexistent (not counting suicide bombers). Heck,
even the suicide bombers casualties per capita makes Israel a pretty
safe place to be.
Taking away the means to do evil never works. Evil finds a way.
Taking away the intent is the true battle.
Steve
Hi again Steve,
Good luck with the amendment amendment.
Another example of a safe and low-crime society where
many homes have automatic weapons is Switzerland, where all able-bodied
males between late teens and middle age are required to be
members of the militia. A concept not unlike what you're proposing,
except it is compulsory.
Charles
Moral Anarchy
From Anonymous by request:
I've been debating over the past week or so whether to send you this
letter regarding your article Serial Sniper a
Product of Postmodern Moral Anarchy; I finally figured that I'd add
those comments while I have a moment at my computer (and anyway, after
a couple weeks you've probably become a little bit less swamped with
letters, I certainly know how much time it takes to read them
all!).
First of all, I've been enjoying your articles for the past several
years; they always seem to be well written and worthwhile to read.
Both are true of your latest, as well, even though I do not agree
with it. Reading along, I came to this statement: "Such moral monsters
are a product of our morally adrift culture, not the Catholic culture
of Mexico and Latino Texas a century ago." Makes me wonder - weren't
murderers around 100 years ago? I mean, killing other people isn't
exactly a new idea, and I don't believe that an increase in this type
of thing is linked to a decrease in Christians. Sure, Christianity
teaches that killing is wrong, and so do most other religions. I'd
consider myself an atheist, and I also don't condone killing, and I
think just about any other atheist that you ask will say the same
thing. I would say that people have many different moral values, but I
don't believe this is necessarily a bad thing (as it seems like you
imply in the first part of that sentence - correct me if I'm
wrong).
These murderers don't kill because they have no values; they kill
because they have mental issues, a distorted sense of logic that
somehow tells them that killing (whomever the victim) will somehow
solve one of their problems. This is nothing that any religion can
repair, and it can be caused by many things - usually some sort of
actual defect that can be brought to light by a lack of love, care, and
attention when they were young.
I also don't believe that if Christianity no longer existed, society
would fall apart (I firmly believe in total separation of church and
state, I'd go as far to say even more so than we currently have in the
US). For the most part, I follow my own moral code, doing what I
believe is right as opposed to what people want me to believe is right
(150+ years ago, they "wanted" you to believe that slavery was
right.... With few people questioning that, look how long it took for
us to abandon this terrible custom "not 'till 1865, and some of the
world still does it today").
However, I consider myself a "good"' person, always willing to help
someone else when they need it, always offering encouragement to
someone struggling with tough times. You might say that some of my
ideas about morality are the same as Christian ones - and I see no
problem with that. Christian moral ideas, for the most part, exist
because of many people coming together to agree on them based on what
they believe is right (of course there are many others who just blindly
except them all, without questioning, but I won't go there today). You
don't have to be a Christian to "borrow" some of them, and you don't
have to completely disregard them if you aren't a Christian.
As I stated above, murderers don't kill because they have no moral
values or because they may not be Christian (or other religion), but
because they can't make rational decisions about what is right or wrong
due to the way their brain functions. It doesn't matter what type of
society you live in, archistic, anarchistic, etc., as long as there are
people born with mental defects (maybe there will be a way to look for
this in the future, who knows), there will unfortunately always be
people willing to murder others.
Again, thanks for the article. Even though I can't say that I agree,
I like to be open-minded and read alternative viewpoints once in a
while.
Anon.
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
