Publisher's note: This brings the discussion of Islam
vs. the West, moral anarchy, and other religious issues to an end on
Low End Mac. Much as we've enjoyed the discussion in this forum and
appreciate the feedback from Mac users on these issues, the amount of
controversy surrounding the publication of such diverse viewpoints had
been counterproductive.
Free speech, real issues on a Mac site, and flame
mail
From Mark
I have some feedback for your recent articles on flame mail, free
speech, Islam and the west, etc.
Although I do not agree with many of your opinions, I do agree with
you on the issue of free speech. Unrestricted free speech is important.
Even on a Mac news site. Whether people agree with your opinions or
not, you have the right to express them wherever someone will publish
them. Keep up the good fight no matter what people (even me) say about
your opinions.
P.S. Yes, I am the same person who previously flamed both of you for
a) your (CWM) opinions on the pledge of allegiance ordeal, and b) (DAN)
putting that article on LEM. What can I say, I saw the light. At least
on issue b.
-mark
My other computer is a 4000 node beowulf cluster
Thanks Mark,
You get the point.
Charles
The Free Speech Letters
From Howard Fox
Charles,
Please add me to the host of people that are saying I agree with you
and keep going! I always look forward to reading your articles. Also, I
do not agree with those who say that you should only write about Mac
articles. I find your viewpoint refreshing on the different subjects
you choose to write about. I am a Christian and look for these
viewpoints.
I have read your current articles on Applelinks and LEM. Also, I
read Dan Knight's Hatemail Musings
column on LEM. I sent Dan what I hope was an encouraging email, and
hopefully you will find this one encouraging also.
I hope this upcoming holiday season finds you and your family in
good health.
Thank you again for your articles,
Respectfully,
Howard L. Fox Jr
Thanks Howard,
Merry Christmas to you, too.
Charles
Moral anarchy
From Anddrew Fowler
Dear Mr. Moore:
I'm disappointed that anyone would challenge your (or your editor's)
right to express your opinions, however controversial, on a web site
that is free-of-charge. You choose what to publish, and I choose what
to read.
At the same time, while I object to his threatening tone, the
complainant has the right to express his views to your advertisers, who
will, in turn, make their choice.
My own view is that if a Macintosh news site is going to feature
overt political commentary, it should present opposing views, but
that's just my personal preference - it has no obligation to do so.
As for your original editorial, it's unlikely that I can say
anything that hasn't been said already, but one can't be sure, so I'll
add my 2 cents and try to be brief about it.
You say, among other things: "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."
This is the sort of panicked, alarmist rhetoric that I remember
hearing in the 1960s and '70s, except at that time it usually came from
the left. Since the 1980s, cultural pessimism has mostly been the
province of the right. Either way, I'm reminded of something my old man
said when we would pass picketers holding "The End Is Near" signs:
"There have always been people who think the sky is falling, and there
always will be." And as far as I can tell, he was right. They just seem
change their stripes.
[My old man was not as learned or poetic as Neitzche or Jung, but
plain-speaking has its merits.]
You're probably correct that some bad behaviors are more common now
than they might have been in the past, but that's to be expected as
populations and technologies change. To suggest that the likes of
mentally-deranged murderers, drug culture, child prostitution, or "home
invasion robbery" are anything new, much less worse than in other eras,
is naive, in my opinion. Read up on earlier eras in most any large
Western city - New York, London - and I think you'll find that, even
with our problems, we live in genteel times by comparison. And to
forget some of the evils - slavery, Jim Crow, fascism, child labor,
etc. - that our "morally anarchic" culture has overcome (thanks partly
to the efforts of that highly-feared species known as "liberals"), and
to ignore its accomplishments, is shortsighted in my opinion. We face
problems - as far as I know human societies always have - but the sky
is not falling, and the "good old days" exist mostly in the memories
and/or imaginations of the small percentage of the world's population
that had it especially good 50-60 years ago (I was partly one such
person, but I'm also acutely aware of the shortcomings of that era). I
would urge you to take a longer, larger view.
I feel that your view of history is narrow, but to suggest that all
or most of our ills would be cured by more fervent allegiance to
Christian doctrine is worse, in my opinion. Here we are under attack by
Islamic absolutists, in the name of their mythical God, and you would
have us (and presumably them) submit to another form of absolutism in
the name of your mythical God. If I'm misreading you, I apologize, but
if I'm not misreading you, I want no part of it, thank you.
You refer to the dangerousness of well-meaning liberals. I submit
that their dangerousness is exceeded only by that of well-meaning
religious zealots. History bears this out rather spectacularly. To say
that this merely reflects a lack of adherence to real Christian values
is, in my opinion, to engage in wishful thinking and ignore what
history has already taught us about the potential negative effects of
religious zealotry, on both a macro and micro level.
Not that individuality and humanism don't carry their own risks.
There are risks associated with living in an open, secular, democratic
society, and you've identified some of them. But we decided a long time
ago that it was better to bear those risks than to submit collectively
to a single, unanswerable authority, be it a king or a mythical god.
Despite our problems, I think it was the right decision, and people in
the rest of the world, many of whom are still under the thumb of
oppressive religious doctrine, are striving to emulate it, and for good
reason.
I'm not here to merely bash Christianity. I believe that religious
faith can play a meaningful, positive role in people's emotional and
social lives, and in the culture as a whole. I admire the basic
teachings of Jesus even if I'm not Christian (I admire the teachings of
a lot of people). But the suggestion that all of our most pressing
problems are primarily the fault of secular humanists and liberals and
so forth is nonsense, just as it would be nonsense for me to assert
that they are primarily the fault of religion and conservatives. They
are simply an aspect of human nature, and they ebb and flow over time,
depending on a multitude of factors.
Nor am I here to endorse some of the cherished beliefs of
"humanism", such as it is. I don't regard humans as the be-all and
end-all (a conceit that I believe humanists share with Christians, who
project the conceit onto a "God", who supposedly makes them in his
image and puts them here for a "higher purpose") - I believe that
humans are just one species among many. I share much of your disdain
for modern social science and "engineering" - I believe that bad,
unpredictable behavior is, to a large degree, an ineffable part of the
human experience (although, unlike Christians, I ascribe it to natural
forces and chance rather than the more intangible "evil").
In sum, it's not Christian morality per se that I object to - I
suppose that, in theory, it's a fine thing. What worries me most is the
oft-proven danger of giving our collective minds over to any unmediated
authority, be it religious or political. I'd rather take my chances
with plain old human intellect and judgment, flawed as it may be.
Thank you for your consideration.
Andrew Fowler
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for sharing your perspectives.
Just a couple of points of clarification. While I
believe that it would be a much better world if everyone had faith in
Jesus Christ as their Savior and Lord, I'm not expecting that to
happen, and I'm certainly not advocating any sort of coercive program
towards it.
Real Christian faith cannot be coerced, and no one
with a functional understanding of Christian doctrine would suggest
that it could. That is a massive distinction between evangelical
Christianity and fundamentalist Islam. Christianity is predicated on
free will. My hope is that the free will choice can be an informed
choice for as many as possible.
As for accepting moral authority, I believe that the
Bible is the inspired Word of God, and in the authority of the Holy
Tradition of the Church. I am an Anglican Catholic and accept the
teachings of the historic Church on matters of faith, doctrine, and
morality. This is a difficult concept for many in the postmodern West,
indeed many Western Catholics, who have been so thoroughly conditioned
by the reflexive assumptions of Enlightenment liberalism, that
Orthodox/Catholic certitude on moral issues (or anything else) becomes
extremely difficult to accept. It seems like an abdication of intellect
and reason, although it should be carefully noted that it is only after
a Catholic has accepted by reason the concept of an infallible Church
that he surrenders private judgment to the judgment of the Church, and
then only on points where the Church speaks with the voice of God. On
all other points, private judgment for Catholics remains
unimpaired.
However, Catholicism and affirmation of infallible
Church authority (on matters of doctrine and morality) are identical. A
"Catholic" who considers himself free to believe as he chooses is a
contradiction in terms. For Catholics, reason and truth are objective -
not what each individual chooses to make them.
And as we approach the height of the Christmas season,
it is timely to affirm that the Christmas message is not some sentiment
about ""peace, love, and the universal brotherhood of humanity" (not
that those things are to be disparaged, but they are not the central
point here). The Christmas message, in the words of a couple of old
carols, is: "That Jesus the Saviour is come for to die," "to save us
all from Satan's power when we have gone astray."
This is serious stuff - at least it should be for
anyone who wants to legitimately claim to be Christian. We believe that
the eternal estate of human souls hangs in the balance. Jesus' own
Great Commission to His disciples is: "Go into all the world can preach
the Gospel to all creation. He who has believed and has been baptized
shall be saved: But he who has disbelieved shall be condemned." That is
as much a part of the Christmas message as stars and mangers and wise
men bearing gifts.
However, if some choose not to believe, we respect
their free will choice.
Charles
Free speech
From Martin Sørensen
Hi Charles;
I know your writing offends a lot of people, and I also suspect it
does not worry you the least.
On your latest article, I fully agree. Speech is free or not, and only libel laws
should limit it. If someone writes that I am a serial fraud, I would
like to have the matter clarified.
I often find myself disagreeing with your views (e.g., the sniper
article), but that is only to expect as I have some fairly "liberal"
viewpoints (e.g., on drugs and death penalty). But I still read your
articles, because only by challenging one's own views they develop. You
do some of the better written and more considered challenging. Please
continue.
BTW, I largely agree on your analysis of Islam, as would probably
the late Dutch politician Pim Fortuyn.
Best regards
Martin Sørensen
Switzerland and guns and faith
From Martin Sørensen
Hi again, Charles;
A lot has been written about Switzerland and it's particular sort of
defense. Truth is that Switzerland has a relatively high (gun) murder
rate for Western Europe, and that the number is thought to be
underreported for political reasons. That is obviously hard to prove...
In Denmark we have a similar, voluntary, system with around 60,000
members of which the majority have their rifles and ammo at home. With
the lock stored away from the rest. There are very few shootings, as
they are quite good at rejecting the maniacs from entering.
In Denmark, a (quite secular) country of 5.2 million we have around
80 murders each year. I seem to remember that roughly 60-65 are "crimes
of passion", where the victim knew the murderer. This does not seem to
support the theory of secularism being the cause of serial
killings.
Rifles and shotguns are available with a permit, and I think a
hunting certificate. Handguns are somewhat harder to obtain legally.
The difference to the US is, of course, that there is not the huge
number of guns in circulation already, which is why very few thieves
are armed; they don't expect to be shot at, and they know the risk of
being caught as well as the punishment is harder if they are armed. In
the US I think it is too late.
On faith: I do not know where to place myself. Kierkegaard, who
certainly was religious, wrote that faith fundamentally is a feeling;
you either feel God is there or you don't. Where does that leave the
choice?
At the other hand, I know very well that my feeling may be wrong (as
in mislead). I guess I am a wavering atheist :-)
The Bible puzzles me. It is a great guidance for a lot of people,
but at the same time it seems rather conflicting. How does "an eye for
en eye" go with "tuning the other cheek"? And Jesus seemed to treat men
and women on relatively equal terms, where Paulus' attitude differed in
the Corinthian letter (I am sure you know the place I refer to)
That churches during the centuries have built an edifice and
power-structure to which there is no reference in the Bible is another
matter; and to figure out that the Pope is infallible seems a bit
pompous, to say the least. How were they so sure?
Hope this did not get too private,
best regards
Martin Sørensen
Hi Martin,
Culture and community obviously play a role in social
order, as does national temperament. Canada has a fairly high rate of
gun ownership but a much lower gun homicide rate than the U.S. In the
county where I live, I would guess that about 3/4 of the homes have
guns, but violent crime is extremely rare here. In the past 35 years, I
can recall only two gun murders here.
Kierkegaard had much to say that is worth pondering,
but I am not an existentialist. The will to faith is a free will
choice. Faith itself is a gift from God that is beyond reason and
conviction, but IMHO not unreasonable. One of the many paradoxes of
Christianity.
An exegesis of the Bible is well beyond the scope of
this reply. Many {at least apparent) paradoxes there too. Jesus did
appear to contradict the Old Testament at times, viz.:
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an
eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not
evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him
the other also."
On the other hand, He also said:
"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the
prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily I say
unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no
wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled."
Jesus treated women with revolutionary consideration
and respect in the context of the time, as persons of equal value in
the eyes of God, but not necessarily in terms of no distinctions as to
roles. All of the Apostles he chose were male. I don't think Paul's
teachings are contradictory of Christ's.
Re: the Church's authority Jesus said: "And I say also
unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my
church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
An episcopal structure is certainly outlined in the
Book of Acts, and referenced in, for example, 1 Timothy 3.
In Roman Catholic belief, the Petrine See is the
sacrament of the Church's unity. Peter is the vicar of Christ, and
Christ is the head of the Church. The First Vatican Council (1869-70)
further enhanced the role of the papacy by declaring that the church's
infallibility (or inability to err on central issues of the Christian
faith) can be exercised personally by the Pope. Papal infallibility has
been invoked only in extraordinary circumstances, and the notion that
Catholics believe it applies to every word that proceeds from the
pontiff's mouth, is utterly without foundation.
To be deemed infallible, a statement of the Pope must
satisfy all of the following criteria:
(1) he must be speaking ex cathedra as Pope;
(2) the utterance must define a doctrine concerning faith and
morals;
(3) he must be defining a doctrine to be affirmed by the whole
Church.
Unless all three conditions obtain, the Pope is not
speaking infallibly. For example, the Pope may err when expressing his
personal theological views, and not ex cathedra, as, for example, when
a pope condemned Galileo.
It is also inaccurate to assume that the Pope could
produce an infallible ex cathedra pronouncement at any time and on any
subject connected with faith and morals. Any explicit ex cathedra
utterance is based on intensive research and study by both the Pope
himself and his episcopal advisors.
Hope this helps, and Merry Christmas,
Charles
Free speech article...
From Jimmy James Champlin
Charles,
I agree wholeheartedly with your views. It seems to me that because
of the entire "political correctness" movement, people have become
inflammably intolerant. Say something that they don't quite like, and
they'll sic the damned lawyers on you because it's "hate speech". Well,
I don't like to say it, but, yeah, there's things in this world I hate.
I don't like hating, but what else can one do when they see evil around
them that's beyond their power to stop? Hate focused against evil can
be a powerful weapon to stop the wrong.
People, especially here in the States, are becoming more and more
fractured. There's those of us that lean more toward the lifestyle of
an artist, and those that lean toward the suit-and-tie businessman. And
that's where the U.S. is going. It's business vs. the individuals. PC
is driven by big business that doesn't like people criticizing them.
Then, the splinter groups chime in and holler about hate speech. Think
of all the stories of people being sued and made to pay damages to a
giant corporation because they expressed their dissatisfaction with
said uberconglomerate.
Thanks to the childish cretins in Hollywood, we're becoming a
capitalistic totalitarian state. Capitalism in of itself isn't a
bad thing, but this new breed of capitalist that now exist in
our world have to be stopped. The world does not exist simply for their
profit. People are not "consumers" and "consumers" are not the enemy,
but this is exactly the mantra they live by. Everything is boiled down
to the lowest common denominator, packaged, and traded as a commodity.
They're doing the same thing with human rights. The DMCA and other
related laws are just instances where some big industry has bought a
politician and gotten them to ramrod a law through Congress that does
nothing more than limit the options and rights of the public so that
they can make more profit.
Is it just me, or does the U.S. seem overdue for a revolution of
some sort?
Jimmy James Champlin
P.S. Thanks to Low End Mac, Dan Knight,
and Cobweb for being there to bring me your
article. Rick Bauer can take his place with the RIAA, Bill Gates,
Enron, and Senator Fritz Hollings as the New Axis of Evil.
Hi Jimmy,
The revolution I would like to see is a Christian
revival, but see my comments to Andrew above.
Charles
Go to Charles Moore's Mailbag index.
