The crisis of western civilization

[dr_mabeuse]

Liberalism and Enlightenment values are the thing to be protected, preserved and expanded. "Democracy" is just a tool, not a necessarily a value in itself, as your question demonstrates. It's generally a necessary adjunct of those real values, however, although circumstances can be imagined in which you have the values in place without that tool, and there may even be a rare example or two.


PS. on "expanded." By persuasion, not force. I believe that these values appeal to something at the core of all humans [my bolds--dr.M.], which makes them attractive to individuals in every culture. Meaning that they are universal. Needless to say each culture will express these values in their own "accent," but the "melody" is the same.

There's the rub. Just what is it that leads you "to believe" this? This is apparently what Bush & Co believe too, which has not been born out by experience. Time and again the US "believes" developing countries would prefer the freedom of capitalist markets when it turns out they prefer the security and redistribution of a state-run economy while they get on their feet and fix the injustice of a top-heavy rapacious and exploiting elite. Too often we think they'd prefer the wide-open cacophony of our freedom of the airwaves when they find it morally offensive and degrading to their sensibilities. Too often we try to impose a democracy on people who see it as little more than anarchy, something to be avoided at all costs, counter to every notion they hold sacred.

Do you think we have the right to ram our morals down their throats because you "believe these values appeal to something" in them?

 

[3113]

you acknowledged it when you said, "You're right that I hold a culture that puts women as equal as better than one that this not equal."

Of course I hold it as better, Rox. I happen to hold any religion or culture as better if they give women freedom because *I* want that freedom. Now if they took freedoms away from men and gave women more freedoms...would I fight for the men to remain equal? Maybe not. I might be perfectly happy with a society that forces men to stay at home with kids and clean, wear veils (well, masks. Men would look cool with masks), and let women rule the country...I might not have a problem at all with that.



Putting it another way, I don't want my right to have an abortion taken away either, but the U.S. could take it from me. In which case, I'd hold the U.S. culture as worse than others that gave freedom to women to have abortions--including the culture of China, which I'm guessing you don't think is as good a culture as that of the U.S. I happen to have gay friends and I think they should be allowed to marry. If the U.S. has a national amendment against this, I'll hold its national culture as inferior to that of the U.K. where gays are allowed to marry.

Do you begin to see? I *am* a relativist. You're arguing that the whole of U.S. culture is superior to the whole of, say, Saudi Culture, or Chinese Culture, or Russian Culture. I don't see it that way. I see some *VALUES* as superior to others and I do so, admittedly, because they feel right to me, in some cases because I was raised to see them that way, and often because they benefit me and mine.

But if some woman doesn't, because of her culture, wants to stay at home and not have the same freedoms as me, hey. That's her choice and so long as she doesn't force it on me or others, why should I care what she values?

I pick and choose. I take whatever country, whatever culture, whatever religion does things I like...often for my selfish benefit. So. Given that you apparently hold the whole of U.S. Culture as superior to other cultures, but I only hold certain aspects of U.S. Culture, the ones that benefit me, as superior...um. How is that in line with what you're saying?

And how can I deny relativism if I admit that this is how I pick and choose my values?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

There's the rub. Just what is it that leads you "to believe" this? This is apparently what Bush & Co believe too, which has not been born out by experience. Time and again the US "believes" developing countries would prefer the freedom of capitalist markets when it turns out they prefer the security and redistribution of a state-run economy while they get on their feet and fix the injustice of a top-heavy rapacious and exploiting elite. Too often we think they'd prefer the wide-open cacophony of our freedom of the airwaves when they find it morally offensive and degrading to their sensibilities. Too often we try to impose a democracy on people who see it as little more than anarchy, something to be avoided at all costs, counter to every notion they hold sacred.

Do you think we have the right to ram our morals down their throats because you "believe these values appeal to something" in them?

How could you miss the first four words of that PS - "By persuasion, not force," and having done so engage with some hostility the "I believe that these values appeal to something at the core of all humans" part?

Why do I believe that values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion - in general freedom from the abitrary power of other men - appeal to people everywhere? Because all over the world those values have been making progress, wherever they are not squelched by brutal dictators or atavistic superstition.

Naturally the elites in those dictatorships oppose these values, as do those masses who are in the grip of those superstitions, but brutal dictatorship is ultimately a fragile political system, and atavistic superstitions cannot stand forever against the expansion of human knowledge that began with the discovery of the scientific method. Remove those inhibiting factors and common people tend to prefer freedom.

Have you noticed that the "vocabulary" of liberalism is used almost everywhere by both its true friends and by those who cynically use the words to squelch the real thing. "Hypocricy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."

As I said, different cultures do and will put their own stamp on these values - I have no simplistic vision that they'll all be clones of western democracies.

 

[amicus]

And how can I deny relativism if I admit that this is how I pick and choose my values?

~~~

Not directed at the poster, but in general as this question/statement, illuminates the contradiction.

Animals are taught by a parent/parents of what foods to eat and what not, how to hunt and kill, how to fight and defend, they 'pick and choose their values' according to a set of learned behaviors and the excellent senses of sight and touch and smell.

Homosapiens, on the other hand, 'the rational animal', which must use its mind to survive, has to learn the hard way which berries and mushrooms can be eaten and which can not. The essential defining characteristic being, of course, those mushrooms and berries that are beneficial to life and those which will kill you or make you ill, 'not beneficial to life'.

That would be called an absolute system of values and hence, morality and ethics, one does not feed poison berries and mushrooms to a child.

Life is absolute, it is neither relative nor subjective or whimsical or created only in the mind.

So to are the essential ingredients, the requirements, needed to sustain and maintain life, all absolute. You cannot consume a rock or a poison berry and survive, keep your life.

While it seems to be a long impossible mental stretch for most here to transition physical and natural absolutes to the realm of abstractions, it is essential if man is to maintain the mantle of 'rational animal'.

You may attach, 'right/wrong', 'good/bad', to any and all issues, but they remain in fact, absolute and certainly not relative or subjective to the whims of a weak mind.

Amicus...

 

[Pure]

silly

ami So to are the essential ingredients, the requirements, needed to sustain and maintain life, all absolute. You cannot consume a rock or a poison berry and survive, keep your life.

While it seems to be a long impossible mental stretch for most here to transition physical and natural absolutes to the realm of abstractions, it is essential if man is to maintain the mantle of 'rational animal'.

You may attach, 'right/wrong', 'good/bad', to any and all issues, but they remain in fact, absolute and certainly not relative or subjective to the whims of a weak mind.

pure: your views on

polygamy

premarital sex

assisted suicide

genocide?


it may be that there are absolutes such as 'do not kill off too many of your fellow citizens', but this list is short. i maintain there are no 'absolute,' demonstrable, objectively correct answers to the above. i invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

 

[amicus]

ami So to are the essential ingredients, the requirements, needed to sustain and maintain life, all absolute. You cannot consume a rock or a poison berry and survive, keep your life.

While it seems to be a long impossible mental stretch for most here to transition physical and natural absolutes to the realm of abstractions, it is essential if man is to maintain the mantle of 'rational animal'.

You may attach, 'right/wrong', 'good/bad', to any and all issues, but they remain in fact, absolute and certainly not relative or subjective to the whims of a weak mind.

pure: your views on

polygamy

premarital sex

assisted suicide

genocide?


it may be that there are absolutes such as 'do not kill off too many of your fellow citizens', but this list is short. i maintain there are no 'absolute,' demonstrable, objectively correct answers to the above. i invite you to demonstrate otherwise.

~~~

For those who haven't followed this forum closely, I seldom choose to respond to the above poster for a variety of reasons. This poster maintains there is no objective truth, no good or bad, no right or wrong about any subject or issue and devotes a great deal of time to challenging anyone who postulates such moral and ethical absolutes. As with most post modern relativists, this poster never, ever defends a position of any sort, claiming one can not rationally advocate any moral truism, or axiomatic truth.

My 'views' on the above issues are of importance only to me in terms of views, but they are issues worthy of consideration and thoughts, as each reflects an aspect of human behavior, a determining of 'good or bad', right or wrong, as it pertains to human ethics and morals.

There is a long history of males, in all species, servicing more than one female in the herd, group, tribe, and if you are a serious questioner of human behavior, you will make yourself aware of that history.

In domestic animals the superior genes of one male are often used to inseminate the females to produce offspring with certain characteristics considered beneficial.

The 'aristocrats' for former times, be they tribal chieftans, procurers of Harems for lust or greed or status, or religious leaders leading the flock, have often ministered to many females.

On the converse, females have flocked to the wealthy and powerful, (and still do), as a means of securing their future and that of their offspring.

There are many historical events which a settlement's male population was decimated by conflict and war and the females had little choice other than to share the available males for procreation and support.

There is, of course, the entire history of the many Religions that excerted moral superiority and created a list of 'Commandments' that dictated human behavior.

But a strange thing happen on the way to the forum, ahem.

Humankind began to rise above both the disasters of nature and war and even shed itself of oppressive religion(an ongoing process), a created a dilemma for the morally and ethically curious.

What is the nature of the beast? Does humanity have a 'nature' that can be objectively defined? What is truth, reason, rationality?

Are answers to those question possible to know?

The poster that posed the questions, reflecting many here and elsewhere, looked upon the complexity of the issues and jumped back in horror. What? They scream in dismay, I must think? Actually, rationally, objectively, logically, think and solve, answer these questions?

No way, Jose', I would rather have a 'belief' to tell me what to think.

That 'belief' my dear friends, is 'subjective relativism', a philosophy and mindset akin to religion, that says the truth is beyond the mere human mind and since we don't believe in a Deity anymore, then, there can be no conclusive answers to these pesky problems.

And anyone who dares say there is truth, is a traitor to the cause of abject ignornace and we shall burn them at the stake!

You want an answer, an objective, absolute, truistic one to Polygamy? Answer it yourself, I am not your Priest or Guru.

If there is anything left of that convoluted, contradictory brain, explore your own moral and ethical foundations and see if you can discover a 'truth' somewhere in there.

I expect you will not, as by fiat, you reject even the possibility of absolute truth and moral behavior.

I do suggest that the opposite of Polygamy, Monogamy, does offer a means of beginning to understand both human nature, the nature of the male of the species and the nature of the female.

This requires at least a small attempt to comprehend the innate desires of both male and female and why anyone would want to produce and care for offspring in the first place.

Or are we but animals, sans the rational, and driven by our seasonal urges to mate?

And if so, with whom shall we mate and why?

Somewhere along that path to the 'forum', I mentioned earlier, some fool human postulated that each individual human life had value all its own, independent from all others and even from King and God alike.

Things ain't been the same since.

And most nostaligically yearn for a return to 'faith' and seek it by every avenue.

Such a pity.

Amicus...

 

[dr_mabeuse]

How could you miss the first four words of that PS - "By persuasion, not force," and having done so engage with some hostility the "I believe that these values appeal to something at the core of all humans" part?

Why do I believe that values like freedom of speech, freedom of religion - in general freedom from the abitrary power of other men - appeal to people everywhere? Because all over the world those values have been making progress, wherever they are not squelched by brutal dictators or atavistic superstition.

Naturally the elites in those dictatorships oppose these values, as do those masses who are in the grip of those superstitions, but brutal dictatorship is ultimately a fragile political system, and atavistic superstitions cannot stand forever against the expansion of human knowledge that began with the discovery of the scientific method. Remove those inhibiting factors and common people tend to prefer freedom.

Have you noticed that the "vocabulary" of liberalism is used almost everywhere by both its true friends and by those who cynically use the words to squelch the real thing. "Hypocricy is the tribute vice pays to virtue."

As I said, different cultures do and will put their own stamp on these values - I have no simplistic vision that they'll all be clones of western democracies.

My "ram down the throat" was unduly harsh and I do apologize. But I get worked into a lather thinking about other ramming-down-the-throat attempts, like the unmitigated hubris of the United States of America in its belief that Iraq was a democracy waiting to happen and that all we had to do was remove the repressive dictator to have it blossom into some sort of 51st State, a beacon of freedom and Western-style enlightenment in the Middle East. What we achieved instead was a violent, paroxysmal reaction in the opposite direction which has polarized the world and cost us untold amounts of life and treasure. A moment's reflection informed by cultural understanding could have avoided all this.

This belief that all the world would be American if only it could is a deep and particularly American disease, and unfortunately embodies the very worst aspects of the American psyche. Yes, they'd love to have our money and our social stability, but by and large, that's about it.

 

[amicus]

Your argument is so weak and specious as to be pathetic.

Speak your piece to the people of South Korea, and Asia in general; to the liberated nations of Europe, freed from the yoke of Nazism and Communism, to people all over the world who owe their independence to that American psyche you so detest.

The innate and absolute desire of each individual human to be free is the aspect of human nature you seem not to comprehend.

The middle east will one day throw off the yoke of radical Islam and people one day will smile kindly on the efforts of those nations who gave them the opportunity to grasp and hold their own freedom.

I have no concern whatsoever as to your personal opinions or philosophy, but I am compelled to combat the hatred and vitriol you spew to an innocent forum.

Amicus...

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

My "ram down the throat" was unduly harsh and I do apologize. But I get worked into a lather thinking about other ramming-down-the-throat attempts, like the unmitigated hubris of the United States of America in its belief that Iraq was a democracy waiting to happen and that all we had to do was remove the repressive dictator to have it blossom into some sort of 51st State, a beacon of freedom and Western-style enlightenment in the Middle East. What we achieved instead was a violent, paroxysmal reaction in the opposite direction which has polarized the world and cost us untold amounts of life and treasure. A moment's reflection informed by cultural understanding could have avoided all this.

This belief that all the world would be American if only it could is a deep and particularly American disease, and unfortunately embodies the very worst aspects of the American psyche. Yes, they'd love to have our money and our social stability, but by and large, that's about it.

No apology is needed - I've been known to "throw an elbow" myself. (No really, I have. )

But you have failed to engage the substance of what I said - that liberal values, freedom - have universal appeal, when the contraints I cited are lifted (brutal dictatorship, mystification by atavistic superstition). Instead, another tired rant about "bush lied" and "iraq war bad." Yawn. <oops - an elbow>
Can't you lift your horizon beyond the immediate political issue of the day and look ahead 20, 50 even 200 years?

 

[WRJames]

Well, I'm disappointed that I missed out on this thread so far. I've been tied up trying to get some of the Club Lighthouse books formatted for Fictionwise, and somehow it escaped me.

It's certainly intersting, though, to see how all the "intellectuals" on the site can get worked up on this. It's like watching hockey players trying to slug it out -- since they are on ice, they can't get any force behind their swings. They are desperately looking for something to grab on to so that they can land a firm blow on the other guy.

Which is more or less how this thread has gone.

Let me just say that there has been an ongoing confusion of "artists" with "intellectuals." As one who has at times felt the Muse pour through me (listen the piano works if you don't believe me) I can attest that artistic activity may have little or nothing to do with "intellect" per se. I don't regard intellectuals as the guardians of the human spirit, in this culture or any other. Most "intellectuals" I have encountered would not recognize inspiration if it came up and bit them. They tend to be the equivalent of tone deaf as far as creativity is concerned.

As for morals -- the most depressing course I ever took in college was on the philosophy of ethics. I imagined, in my sophomoric naivite, that it would be a course on how to act with virtue. I had actually had such an experiece one year in high school -- our English course that year had been on the topic of man's inhumanity to man -- with special emphasis, of course, on the Holocaust. But this coillege course was nothing of the sort. Instead, the instructor took great glee in debunking every ethical system that came before us. He concinced me, quite reluctantly, that there is no "rational" basis for ethical behavior.

Probably, eventually, that was an experience that steered me back into being religious.

Roxanne quite properly cites the values of the Enlightenment as beacons that we should hold on to. But those values grew out of the Reformation. Most of the great liberating movements in America have their roots in words of the Biblical prophets.

Which is not to say that we should take the morality of that age and attempt to apply it "as is" to our current situation. I would be the last to advocate that. But we can use the best of what our faith tradition offers as a basis to move forward.

We are self deceived if we think that there are easy answers, carved in stone for eternity. We are also self deceived if we say that there are no answers at all.

 

[Pure]

note to rox

But you [mab]have failed to engage the substance of what I said - that liberal values, freedom - have universal appeal, when the contraints I cited are lifted (brutal dictatorship, mystification by atavistic superstition).

my conclusion about the murky complaint of this thread is that, in general, those who lament "relativism" and the LACK of furtherance of "western values" by the west. are, in fact calling for one or both of

1) more domestic authority

2) more muscular foreign policy, including armed interventions.

such measures are of course the preferred tools of those who are certain of their answers to various moral and social questions. e.g. the religious right and the atheist authoritarian right (e.g. amicus).

i may be reading too closely, but note what seems like an obvious implication of Rox's point, above. we don't, she says, 'enforce' democracy, but we "lift constraints" e.g. those of brutal dictatorships, where they exist. then the masses yearning to be free, seize the chance.

sound familiar: yes, Bush's rationale for "taking out" Saddam; Kennedy's rationale for the Bay of Pigs.

although it's frighteningly obvious to roxanne and amicus, the 'taking out' of an evil dictator is often (if successful) a mixed bag, in results.

weren't the iraqi's supposed to throw flowers? those calling for muscular interventions are stuck in the model of the Allied liberation of France from *foreign domination* by the Nazis. yes, there were flowers. and NO, this result cannot be generally expected for home grown dictatorships.

all of this assumes a benevolent intervention for truth, right, and democracy. while this occasionally happens, interventions to establish "friendly dictators" as opposed to 'hostile dictators' are more common.
---

rox Pure, the reason you don't think my examples of Western elites going soft on core liberal values like freedom of speech and press are worthy of concern is because you are among those who have gone soft, wanting to add new exceptions and qualifications to those particular principles, for example

rox has the hard implements needed to promote virtue. i've gone soft before evil.

rox thrusts upon us the necessity for the triumph of will. i yield in epicene compliance to islamofascism.

rox want erect pursuit of individual virtue. i limply concede to sharia law in the West.

rox issues forceful ejaculations about the true values of humanity; the AH liberals can't even get it up to protest 9-11 attacks.

rox is clearly the best and most resolute member in AH.

 

[WRJames]

The Enlightment was a great advance in politics and philosophy. Certainly we should not "retreat" from Enlightenment values. However, advancement may of course require some modification.

Take for example the bold statement that "all men" are "created equal." This probably, strictly, meant males, and white ones at that. The author of that famous phrase kept black sex slaves. The expansion of that understanding to "all" has been a continuing struggle.

There has been much discussion of "moral relativism" in this thread, but it has shied away from the more fundamental question of individual freedom versus morality of any type. How much, and what types, of "immoral" behavior are we willing to tolerate in the name of freedom?

Closely related to this is the problem of cultural diversity. If America was ever a White, Protestant nation (mostly in myth and memory) it certainly is not now. Even within the Christian community there are major fissures over "moral" issues, and there are many Americans who adhere to other traditions, or no religion at all.

So where does that leave us? We have a President who keeps talking about exporting "freedom" at the same time his a tool of a conservative right with a very repressive moral agenda. The left is not much better -- their concern for social welfare would restrict many individual freedoms in the name of the common good. The prospects for "liberty" and the "pursuit of happiness" seem dim. Left or right, we seem to be destined to be regimented into someone's utopian vision.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

No apology is needed - I've been known to "throw an elbow" myself. (No really, I have. )

But you have failed to engage the substance of what I said - that liberal values, freedom - have universal appeal, when the contraints I cited are lifted (brutal dictatorship, mystification by atavistic superstition). Instead, another tired rant about "bush lied" and "iraq war bad." Yawn. <oops - an elbow>
Can't you lift your horizon beyond the immediate political issue of the day and look ahead 20, 50 even 200 years?

No, that wasn't a "Bush Lied" rant. It was a "Maybe our values don't fit" rant. It was addressed exactly to your assumption that freedom and liberty are what everyone wants and wants more than anything else, because that's the assumption we made about Iraq and it turned out to be dead wrong.

The Iraqi's don't value freedom and liberty in a society above all else. They value order and stability, values which we take so much for granted that we don't even think about them. What we saw as giving them freedom, they saw as establishing anarchy, and they quickly organized themselves in such a way as to prevent this from happening. They organized themselves according to traditional power structure and began fighting for dominance because we tried to impose a foreign value system upon them.

We have to be very careful what value systems we espouse. We in the US insist that emerging countries adopt free market systems when often a state-controlled system seems to be the quickest and most efficient way to get the economy up and running and provide for the basic needs of the citizenry. Once these survival needs are met, then capitalism can be allowed to flourish as is being done with great success in China. It would have been nuts to go into China after the revolution and insist on freedom an liberty for everyone when the country was in a state of absolute chaos and the economy in ruins.

As far as the value of freedom as a universal value goes, I'm reminded of that spectrum of choice that has absolute freedom with no security on one end, and absolute security with no freedom on the other. Each people makes a choice where upon that spectrum they want to live. It's a matter of temperament.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

But you [mab]have failed to engage the substance of what I said - that liberal values, freedom - have universal appeal, when the contraints I cited are lifted (brutal dictatorship, mystification by atavistic superstition).

my conclusion about the murky complaint of this thread is that, in general, those who lament "relativism" and the LACK of furtherance of "western values" by the west. are, in fact calling for one or both of

1) more domestic authority

2) more muscular foreign policy, including armed interventions.

such measures are of course the preferred tools of those who are certain of their answers to various moral and social questions. e.g. the religious right and the atheist authoritarian right (e.g. amicus).

i may be reading too closely, but note what seems like an obvious implication of Rox's point, above. we don't, she says, 'enforce' democracy, but we "lift constraints" e.g. those of brutal dictatorships, where they exist. then the masses yearning to be free, seize the chance.

sound familiar: yes, Bush's rationale for "taking out" Saddam; Kennedy's rationale for the Bay of Pigs.

although it's frighteningly obvious to roxanne and amicus, the 'taking out' of an evil dictator is often (if successful) a mixed bag, in results.

weren't the iraqi's supposed to throw flowers? those calling for muscular interventions are stuck in the model of the Allied liberation of France from *foreign domination* by the Nazis. yes, there were flowers. and NO, this result cannot be generally expected for home grown dictatorships.

all of this assumes a benevolent intervention for truth, right, and democracy. while this occasionally happens, interventions to establish "friendly dictators" as opposed to 'hostile dictators' are more common.
---

Oh bullshit, Pure - you're just making shit up at this point. I'm disappointed in you. I must be 100 percent, unambiguously correct if that's really all you got: "Roxanne just wants more Patriot Act; Roxanne just wants to push other nations around. Oh, and BUSH LIED!"

Fuck, why don't you say I'm just trying to cover up the Watergate break-in too, fer Christ's sake?

~~~~~

Your game it to attack and criticize, but never share any real vision. Let it be noted that I'm not afraid to offer a clear vision and preference: I want America and the West to have the confidence to say the following:

We believe that liberal values are superior. Among those values are these:

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- A vision of a self-chosen life

In short, the belief that all humans are created equal, and have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We aren't afraid to say that these values are superior, so if you disagree, deal with it. We won't compromise these values at home out of misplaced "sensitivity" for those who do not share them, so don't bother to ask.

We hope and believe that eventually some version of these values will be adopted everywhere in the world, but whether that takes 100 years, 1,000 years or more is not in our hands. We will applaud progress toward that end, and express regret at its opposite. Those who work to further these values are our friends, and those who seek to squash them are not. We accept our powerlessness to force others to change their hearts and minds, and that it would be a violation of our values to try, but don't expect us to be silent about what we believe, either.

 

[cloudy]

There's the rub. Just what is it that leads you "to believe" this? This is apparently what Bush & Co believe too, which has not been born out by experience. Time and again the US "believes" developing countries would prefer the freedom of capitalist markets when it turns out they prefer the security and redistribution of a state-run economy while they get on their feet and fix the injustice of a top-heavy rapacious and exploiting elite. Too often we think they'd prefer the wide-open cacophony of our freedom of the airwaves when they find it morally offensive and degrading to their sensibilities. Too often we try to impose a democracy on people who see it as little more than anarchy, something to be avoided at all costs, counter to every notion they hold sacred.

Do you think we have the right to ram our morals down their throats because you "believe these values appeal to something" in them?

Hear, hear.

Favorite bumpersticker: "Be nice to Americans...or we'll bring democracy to YOUR country."

 

[elsol]

Your game it to attack and criticize, but never share any real vision. Let it be noted that I'm not afraid to enunciate a vision and state apreference; here they are: I want America and the West to have the confidence to say the following:

We believe that liberal values are superior. Among those values are these:

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state
- Faith in the role of the individual and of reason in human affairs
- A vision of a self-chosen life

In short, the belief that all humans are created equal, and have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The problem, Rox, is that all of WE do not believe it.

 

[3113]

The problem, Rox, is that all of WE do not believe it.

My point exactly.

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state

These aren't American Cultural Values. They're "Laws" within our bill of rights that people have to follow if they live in the U.S. whether they value them or not. This is the mistake you keep making over and over again. These can be values, but the facts prove that the majority of Americans don't hold these values (or, at least, don't hold them until they benefit them personally). They just obey the laws based on these values. There are, for example, a lot of people in th U.S. who would happily make all schools have school prayer and don't believe God should be kept out of the schools or courthouses for that matter (remember the Judge and the 10 Commandments?). They don't believe there should be any separation of church and state; They value god in everything--and they were able to put THIS value on our money (In God We Trust) and in our schools (the pledge did not originally have "Under God" in it). There are those who would like to make it illegal to say certain things, they'd outlaw any criticism of the government, make it against the law to burn flags. They value limits on speech, and they've come close, time and again, to passing that flag burning amendment. And there are those who don't want their fellow Americans, be they women or people of another religion or ethnicity to have equality.

When you speak of American Cultural Values, you imply these are things that most Americans believe in--and you argue that they're so fundamentally true and right, that people can't help but want to believe in them if they're not under a dictatorship--This IS what you're saying, yes? I'm not getting it wrong, am I? If we present these things to other countries they will see them as the best values?

If this is correct and these are American Values then why did we have to force them down the throats of Americans? Why did we have to have the Civil War (freeing the slaves) and then, 100 years...100 YEARS later, we had to force the South to surrender the Jim Crow laws and give equal education to and rights to their fellow Americans? We'd been free of our dictatorship for nearly 200 years. We'd asserted that blacks were human beings over 100 years ago. And yet both North and South had allowed these Americans to be treated as less than equal, less than human for 100 years afterwards.

That seems like an awfully long time for people living and believing in the value of democracy to not believe in a core value of democracy, don't you think? That being the rights and equality of all citizens? And there was no kindly persuasion involved. We FORCED the South to integrate schools with armed guards. They fought equality with fire hoses and dogs, with church burnings, with lynchings. The South did not listen to reason and become enlightened.

So, I'm mystified as to how you can argue that any of these values are ones that humanity can recognize as superior and desired when in the land of equality, independence, freedom and democracy whole segments of American Culture--a Majority in fact--have been willing to fight against them, and would still be willing to fight against them if there were no laws protecting those right (rights, not values).

Once again, the facts just don't support your assertions--if I'm reading your assertions correctly

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The problem, Rox, is that all of WE do not believe it.

In this country, this is our civic creed. No one is compelled to believe that all humans are created equal, or that women should have equal rights and priviliges as men, or that individuals should have the right to worship as they choose (or not worship at all), or that the press should be free and no person prohibited for saying what he believes - even to say he believes that others should not be free to say what they believe.

No one is compelled to believe these things, and there is no sanction for not believing so long as you don't try to subject another to the consequences of your beliefs. But you're "we" is not our "we." Our "we" is the people who do believe these things.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

My point exactly.

- Equality for women
- Freedom of speech and press
- Freedom of religion
- Separation of church and state

These aren't American Cultural Values. They're "Laws" within our bill of rights that people have to follow if they live in the U.S. whether they value them or not. This is the mistake you keep making over and over again. These can be values, but the facts prove that the majority of Americans don't hold these values (or, at least, don't hold them until they benefit them personally). They just obey the laws based on these values. There are, for example, a lot of people in th U.S. who would happily make all schools have school prayer and don't believe God should be kept out of the schools or courthouses for that matter (remember the Judge and the 10 Commandments?). They don't believe there should be any separation of church and state; They value god in everything--and they were able to put THIS value on our money (In God We Trust) and in our schools (the pledge did not originally have "Under God" in it). There are those who would like to make it illegal to say certain things, they'd outlaw any criticism of the government, make it against the law to burn flags. They value limits on speech, and they've come close, time and again, to passing that flag burning amendment. And there are those who don't want their fellow Americans, be they women or people of another religion or ethnicity to have equality.

When you speak of American Cultural Values, you imply these are things that most Americans believe in--and you argue that they're so fundamentally true and right, that people can't help but want to believe in them if they're not under a dictatorship--This IS what you're saying, yes? I'm not getting it wrong, am I? If we present these things to other countries they will see them as the best values?

If this is correct and these are American Values then why did we have to force them down the throats of Americans?

Once again, these values consitute our civic creed. In the heat of ephemeral political passions and debates, unsophisticated masses may express views on a particular element in that creed that contradicts it. But mostly that's just talk. Here's the proof of the pudding: A candidate who ticked off the elements of that creed saying "no, no, no" to each would get creamed. The masses are not always and everywhere "pure" on each and every particular, but in the main they support the creed, and will not tolerate policies and positions that drift too far from it.
~~~

Needless to say, when we get into particulars there are many ambiguities. You cite one, which is the place of religion in government schools. One response is that we should dump government schools and just hand out vouchers, but I'll save that debate for another day. Here's the point: You express concern that Christians want to insinuate some rather superficial practices into government schools. That's a slight wandering from the centerpoint identified by our creed, and it could happen. But the further the movement from that centerpoint the greater the resistance becomes, and it's easy to identify an example of what the masses would not tolerate: The government closing down a private religious school because it's not the "right" religion. That would excite near-universal condemnation, even among unsophisticated masses.

~~~~
We writers are not unsophisticated about these matters, or we shouldn't be, anyway. We should be capable of seeing a bigger picture, with our view unclouded by the passions of ephemeral political issues. Here's what that view shows: The elites and the masses in Western societies hold liberal values. The truth of that leaps out when you compare our societies to ones that explicitly do not share not values.

In that light, the political differences that separate the opposite ends of the political spectrum within our societies are seen to be miniscule, and the distance between any of us and the truly illiberal ones great indeed. We debate gay marriage, they stone gays. We quibble over a "moment of silence" in government schools, they demolish churches. We squabble over university "speech codes," they "put out contracts" on writers who offend them. Inches vs light years, friends. Liberal vs. illiberal.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

If this is correct and these are American Values then why did we have to force them down the throats of Americans? Why did we have to have the Civil War (freeing the slaves) and then, 100 years...100 YEARS later, we had to force the South to surrender the Jim Crow laws and give equal education to and rights to their fellow Americans? We'd been free of our dictatorship for nearly 200 years. We'd asserted that blacks were human beings over 100 years ago. And yet both North and South had allowed these Americans to be treated as less than equal, less than human for 100 years afterwards.

"Learning in progress," 3. No, really. Once again, try to take a step back and veiw all this in a broader historical perspective. These liberal values were first clearly enunciated just 300 years ago, and there was no place or people in the world that fully appreciated or accepted their implications. The values were embodied in our law 232 years ago, in the very act by which we became a nation. Four score and seven years later great battles were fought in the name of these values, to wipe out a smear on them. 100 years after that a nonviolent struggle was conducted in the name of these values, to make real the promise of that earlier conflict.

Along the way women won the vote. Now gays are making progress toward assuming the rights and priviliges inherent in the full application of these values, and once again they call upon these values to advance that struggle.

These values are a new thing in the world, so why should we expect them to be perfectly realized all at once, even in the place where they first found a home? But the direction is clear, and progress steady over time. Look at the tides, not the waves; climate, not weather.

 

[cloudy]

"Learning in progress," 3. No, really. Once again, try to take a step back and veiw all this in a broader historical perspective. These liberal values were first clearly enunciated just 300 years ago, and there was no place or people in the world that fully appreciated or accepted their implications. The values were embodied in our law 232 years ago, in the very act by which we became a nation. Four score and seven years later great battles were fought in the name of these values, to wipe out a smear on them. 100 years after that a nonviolent struggle was conducted in the name of these values, to make real the promise of that earlier conflict.

Along the way women won the vote. Now gays are making progress toward assuming the rights and priviliges inherent in the full application of these values, and once again they call upon these values to advance that struggle.

These values are a new thing in the world, so why should we expect them to be perfectly realized all at once, even in the place where they first found a home? But the direction is clear, and progress steady over time. Look at the tides, not the waves; climate, not weather.

And with this you've reached the very reason that we must let other cultures come into their own, and not shove our values down their throats, as much as you seem to love that idea.

Shoving doesn't work, and only breeds resentment like that we see right now. You'd think people would learn after seeing the same results time after time and generation after generation, but no....in your arrogance you assume that everyone wants to be like you.

I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

I could go back in this thread and add up the times I said "by persuasion not force" and the different ways I said it, but I don't think it's really necessary. Indeed, it's probably an idication that there's no fundamental disagreement with the core of my argument (on liberal values) when the most oft-repeated "rebuttal" is to contradict something that I haven't said, making a point that I don't disagree with.

 

[cloudy]

I could go back in this thread and add up the times I said "by persuasion not force" and the different ways I said it, but I don't think it's really necessary. Indeed, it's probably an idication that there's no fundamental disagreement with the core of my argument (on liberal values) when the most oft-repeated "rebuttal" is to contradict something that I haven't said, making a point that I don't disagree with.

And when your "persuasion" doesn't work - which it won't, because their values are not yours - what then?

You forget...we've seen the results of "persuasion" before. It looks an awful lot like "force," so much so as to be practically indiscernible.

 

[elsol]

No one is compelled to believe these things, and there is no sanction for not believing so long as you don't try to subject another to the consequences of your beliefs. But you're "we" is not our "we." Our "we" is the people who do believe these things.

Again, you are wrong.

There are people in this country right now that are trying to do EXACTLY that by changing our laws and our constitution. And I would define codifying certain value systems into law as being exactly that... attempting to compel YOU into what WE believe.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Again, you are wrong.

There are people in this country right now that are trying to do EXACTLY that by changing our laws and our constitution. And I would define codifying certain value systems into law as being exactly that... attempting to compel YOU into what WE believe.

Always have been, always will be.

Let me repeat what I said to a similar point from 3113:

In the heat of ephemeral political passions and debates, unsophisticated masses may express views on a particular element in that creed that contradicts it. But mostly that's just talk. Here's the proof of the pudding: A candidate who ticked off the elements of that creed saying "no, no, no" to each would get creamed. The masses are not always and everywhere "pure" on each and every particular, but in the main they support the creed, and will not tolerate policies and positions that drift too far from it.

. . . We writers are not unsophisticated about these matters, or we shouldn't be, anyway. We should be capable of seeing a bigger picture, with our view unclouded by the passions of ephemeral political issues. Here's what that view shows: The elites and the masses in Western societies hold liberal values. The truth of that leaps out when you compare our societies to ones that explicitly do not share not values.

In that light, the political differences that separate the opposite ends of the political spectrum within our societies are seen to be miniscule, and the distance between any of us and the truly illiberal ones great indeed. We debate gay marriage, they stone gays. We quibble over a "moment of silence" in government schools, they demolish churches. We squabble over university "speech codes," they "put out contracts" on writers who offend them. Inches vs light years, friends. Liberal vs. illiberal.