brunson@usfbobo.UUCP (David Brunson) (10/28/84)
[] There hasn't been anything worth answering in the past week. This might be a good time to draw some partial conclusions. What we are seeing here is a conflict of values. My values say that sexual sins are a great evil. The values of most respondents say that intolerance of those who commit sexual sins is a great evil. Once again, it is a question of values. My values say that intolerance is, of itself, neither good nor evil. That is, it is easy to imagine situations where intolerance can be good, and to imagine other situations where intolerance can be evil. For example intolerance of racial minorities, on the basis of race, is a great evil. It is inhuman. Intolerance of profligates, on the other hand, can be a great good -- by discouraging profligacy and thus raising the quality of life for those who would otherwise have been ruined. Many detractors, however, have argued that intolerance itself is inherently evil -- always. First, a partial treatment of the "Types of Wrongness" question. Let's consider the case of the alcoholic. I choose alcoholism because it is an excellent example of Type 0 wrongness (or was it Type 1?): wrong which affects only the wrongdoer. First of all I am not a teetotaler. I know of no foundation for a theology which flatly proscribes alcoholic beverages and I find that a glass of Cabernet with dinner is a distinct pleasure not to be denied lightly. Some folks, unfortunately, seem to be all mixed up on the subject. They seem to actually worship alcohol, falsely crediting it as a source of prosperity or some such confusion. (I often find it difficult to peer into the muddled conciousness of the Unlearned. I don't really understand why people choose to be drunkards -- only that they do, and they must be awfully confused to choose death over life.) Let's further consider the case of the Skid-Row type: the person who has taken perversion of God's bounty to such an extreme that he has forfeited his home, job, friends, for liquor. Now suppose that you meet this person and he asks you for money. Well if you are compassionate you will find that tolerance morality is not sufficient to deal with the situation. You know that if you give this guy a fin he is going to turn it into a fifth of Vodka and drink himself into oblivion. You know that not giving him money won't solve his problems, but buying him a fifth will certainly add to them. That is, all other things being equal, it is probably better for the poor guy to remain sober than to send him off on a binge. So what do you do? Well, you could feed him, give him a warm place to stay, or help out someone else who is already doing this -- a mission, for example. The case of the homosexual is very similar. By denying the poor guy/lady a job you know that you aren't solving his/her problems, but at least you are offering some resistance to the prevailing notion that homosexuality is an acceptable "lifestyle", and therefore making it more unattractive to those only marginally committed to this particular brand of self-destruction. What does the Man of Compassion do in this case? Well there is no difference. If the sinner, the enemy (it is, as one contributor recently noted, good to know who you're enemies are) of righteousness, the liar against the truth, the defiler of those things that are holy and good, needs food, then feed him. If his/her car is broken down, then provide a ride to the nearest gas station. "You shall not see your enemy's donkey or his ox fallen down by the way, and turn away your eyes from them; but you shall surely help him to lift them up again" ... and so on. But you *don't* aid and abet the enemy in unrighteousness. Now back to the value clash. If most detractors were to draw up a code of morality, a sort of Secularist Ten Commandments, it would include something like "Thou shalt not be intolerant". In fact some have even said that discrimination is inherently evil. I do not agree. For the purpose of our little public policy discussion here, it does not matter why I do not agree, just that I don't. I do not subscribe to the same code of morality that most participants seem to be advocating. To me, intolerance is neither good nor evil of itself, just as book-burning is not inherently evil (Alan Driscoll has correctly noted my position on this matter). It is easy to envision a case where book-burning can be a good thing, as when I burned my Linguistics 20 text book because it treated the Myth of Evolution as though it were somehow scientific. Many other books stand out as excellent candidates for book-burning: the "works" of Allen Ginsburg, all of the French existentialist literature, pornographic periodicals, etc. It is also easy to envision a case where book-burning can be a great evil, as when the medieval church burned the Talmud, thus further alienating and persecuting the Jews. Likewise censorship can be either good or evil. The same goes for discrimination, government intervention, taxes, Civil Rights initiatives, war, nuclear power plants, and so on. On the other hand sexual sins: fornication, homosexuality, incest, adultery, bestiality, are always, under all circumstances, inherently evil. Similarly, murder, idol worship, pagan worship, theft, and so on, are always evil. Now I realize that we are in a mixed society. I realize that there are those who do not hold the same values that I do and it is unreasonable, and possibly not a good thing, for me to attempt to enforce my values (the correct values) through legislation. (An aside to believers: it is important to realize that the American system is NOT the ideal form of government but only a useful expedient until the weeds are removed.) I am only asking that God-haters have the same courtesy toward me. We are talking about *my* business affairs. It is really none of your business if I have a policy against hiring homosexuals, adulterers, co-habitators, and other sinners. And yet time and again, folks have stated that it *is* their business if I violate the supposedly universally subscribed proscription against Discrimination. I will agree that it is society's business if I murder, or steal, or otherwise engage in Type 1 wrongness (wrongness that hurts other people). I will even agree that Civil Rights legislation is a good thing (only as an expedient. Any time you get the government involved in social engineering you are really settling for second best). But I vehemently DISagree that I am a criminal for refusing jobs to sinners. The argument that allowing discrimination on the basis of "sexual preference" (the wording of HR-427) will lead to Nazi concentration camps is ridiculous. Such discrimination *is*, in fact, not prohibited. Where are the concentration camps? Once again, can anyone give me any kind of reason (even a "logical" one) why I should be treated as a criminal for refusing to associate with homosexuals? -- David Brunson, friend of the fatherless
ag5@pucc-k (Leo Buscaglia) (11/01/84)
[]
-->David Brunson
--> . . . about intolerance . . .
-->
--> The values of most respondents say that intolerance
-->of those who commit sexual sins is a great evil. Once again, it is
-->a question of values. My values say that intolerance is, of itself,
-->neither good nor evil. That is, it is easy to imagine situations where
-->intolerance can be good, and to imagine other situations where intolerance
-->can be evil. For example intolerance of racial minorities, on the basis
-->of race, is a great evil. It is inhuman. Intolerance of profligates,
-->on the other hand, can be a great good -- by discouraging profligacy
-->and thus raising the quality of life for those who would otherwise
-->have been ruined. Many detractors, however, have argued that intolerance
-->itself is inherently evil -- always. First, a partial treatment of
-->the "Types of Wrongness" question.
Fine. Seeing through the terminology for what it is worth
("sexual sins"), and going right for the heart of the matter, David
indicates that (according to his values) intolerance is neither good
nor evil. This sounds OK at first.
David uses racial minorities as his example; again a good choice.
Keep in mind *why* these people were (and still are) discriminated against:
it was thought that they were INFERIOR to the ruling classes at the time.
This is sad, but true; Americans in the South during the 1800 actually
believed that God destined black men and women to be their slaves because
the white folks ruling the plantation were superior, that the slaves
were *not* human... that black men were incapable of leading others,
of showing intelligence and the like. People believed that it was
*unnatural* for Africans to posess knowledge, intelligence and all that
which we consider to be vital aspects of our humanity. People actually
bought this bullshit, hook, line, and sinker...
Why was that last paragraph relevant? Because those who are
intolerant of alternative lifestyles tend to demonstrate the same
kinds of attitudes... that homosexuals lead an inferior lifestyle,
that homosexuality detracts from our human nature and the like.
Furthermore, it does seem that Christ calls Christians to be
forgiving, to turn the other cheek, and to *not* stand in judgement
(since only God judges...) <Having renounced Christianity several
years ago, this stuff is a bit fuzzy...> How does this permit David
to pass judgement on my lifestyle?
-->Let's consider the case of the alcoholic.
Let's *not* consider the case of the alcoholic. Alcoholics
*are* made, not born. In many cases, alcoholics are of weak character;
this is why they can't deal with alcohol in an acceptable manner.
Alcoholics *choose* alcohol; they have always had the choice to accept
or reject it; some enjoy the sensation to such a degree that they choose
to accept it to excess. They have chosen alcohol to the point where it
no longer becomes a choice, but a reflex... (or so it seems).
On the other hand, gays HAVE NOT CHOSEN to be gay. They may
choose to live the lifestyle that was given to them, or they may choose
to repress it and live miserably...
-->further consider the case of the Skid-Row type: the person who has taken
-->perversion of God's bounty to such an extreme that he has forfeited his home,
-->job, friends, for liquor. Now suppose that you meet this person and he asks
-->you for money. Well if you are compassionate you will find that tolerance
-->morality is not sufficient to deal with the situation. . . .
-->. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . So what do you do?
-->Well, you could feed him, give him a warm place to stay, or help out someone
-->else who is already doing this -- a mission, for example.
-->The case of the homosexual is very similar. By denying the poor guy/lady
-->a job you know that you aren't solving his/her problems, but at least you are
-->offering some resistance to the prevailing notion that homosexuality is
-->an acceptable "lifestyle", and therefore making it more unattractive to
-->those only marginally committed to this particular brand of self-destruction.
All that you do accomplish here is that you force the gay person
to keep his non-employment life and his work life entirely separate. How
many people that you work with don't participate in office social events and
keep to themselves? You are forcing this person to live a lie in order to
provide for basic needs. This doesn't sound very humanitarian and com-
passionate to me....
-->What does the Man of Compassion do in this case? Well there is no difference.
-->If the sinner, the enemy (it is, as one contributor recently noted, good
-->to know who you're enemies are) of righteousness, the liar against the truth,
-->the defiler of those things that are holy and good, needs food, then feed
-->him. . . . . . "You shall not see your enemy's donkey or his ox fallen
-->down by the way, and turn away your eyes from them; but you shall surely
-->help him to lift them up again" ... and so on. But you *don't* aid and
-->abet the enemy in unrighteousness.
I see. Employing someone (which permits that person to seek
basic sustenance and the like) goes against what the man of compassion
does by feeding the "sinner?" Now you *do* have me confused...
More on this tomorrow... at a more sane hour...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry C. Mensch | User Confuser | Purdue University User Services
{ihnp4|decvax|ucbvax|purdue|sequent|inuxc|uiucdcs}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
{allegra|cbosgd|hao|harpo|seismo|intelca|masscomp}!pur-ee!pucc-i!ag5
--------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's a radio for deaf-mutes!"