rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (10/19/84)
> My religion IS, in fact, practiced in the workplace. I believe > that God will prosper me according to my righteousness. Your definition > of righteousness is disgusting to me. WHY CAN'T WE JUST LEAVE THINGS THE > WAY THEY ARE? Why will you have me thrown in jail, or legally forced out > of business because I refuse to accept your warped morality? [BRUNSON] The title of this article represents the oft-heard rationale of those who resist social change: why not leave things as they are? The corollary to this occurs in times when social progress is growing, and the changes that this progress causes requires some adjustment on the part of other people who formerly didn't have bother thinking about the people their behavior was affecting. That corollary is: why don't we go back to the old ways when things were better, when everyone knew their place, etc.? 1. What Brunson calls a warped morality is, in fact, a morality prescribing the right of all human beings to live as they please, provided that their actions do not interfere with or violate another person's rights. Brunson may argue that HIS right to interfere in other people's lives is being violated (his right to discriminate). Yet that is clearly not one of the "rights" this very simple, minimal and rational morality includes. Is there anyone who finds fault with such a morality? Why? 2. If a society is based on the exploitation/oppression/dehumanization/ ignoring of an element(s) of that society, on some arbitrary basis ("They're not human, they're slaves." "They don't believe in the REAL god." "They do *weird* things." "... thus they can't vote, can't expect equal treatment, etc."), then the sudden/gradual realization of the equalness/humanity of that element, that group of people, is going to cause changes in the society. ("You mean we won't have slaves to work in our fields anymore?" "You mean *they* are going to working in *our* company?" "You mean I have to work/live with/near one of *them*?", etc.) If a tenet of the societal morality is truly to treat all people equally, even those who formerly were not, then the changes are to be expected. A fact of life. 3. I'd still like to see the difference between Jews/blacks/women("legitimate" minorities) and homosexuals (non-"legitimate" minorities). I'd also like to know what Brunson's notion of a protected minority is. If all people are to be treated equally and not discriminated against, why are certain groups considered "protected"? 4. The battle cry "let's get things back to the way they were", an appeal to those affected negatively by these changes, is most often a call to fascism and repression. Getting back to the old days will of necessity mean getting back to (actively) repressing the newly emancipated groups of people. Such people are not satisfied until they can repress just about everyone other than themselves. Then there are those like that clergyman who said "First they came for the gays, but I was not gay, so I didn't speak up; then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I didn't speak up; then they came for the communists, but I was not a communist, so I didn't speak up; ... then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me." (BAD PARAPHRASE---could someone please send me the original text and the name of the speaker) -- Now I've lost my train of thought. I'll have to catch the bus of thought. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr