Note: I cross-posted this at The Left Coaster. It started out as a comment, but I figured it long enough to be concidered a diary. Eriposte journal can be found
here . Forgive me for my sins.
---------
"NOW, in the name of YOU'RE MORALITY why don't you go and MURDER and support the murder of another UNBORN CHILD."
-ROOF
I'm not exactly sure what you're morality is ROOF. Perhaps your mind is far beyond mine, or perhaps you are an idiot.
Now to my (compared to your) thoughts on morality. (Note: Below the fold)
The bible and our parents are just two of the infinite influences on our lives that help shape our morality. Further, we may know what it is like to be made fun of in grade school (we've all felt pain on some level or other), so somehow we can relate to, if on a completely different scale, a boy being beaten in Darfur, or a prisoner being abused in Abu Graib. Of course our past experiences have hopefully taught us to relate to all pain, not just the pain we've felt. Imagine if I have been made fun of, and I can only apply what I have learned from that situation in the exact same situation. This is the problem with religious texts, and particularly among those who interpret it as absolute truth. If the bible is absolute truth, what are we to do with situations that fall outside it's bounds/teachings. The same could be said for a preacher. If one takes exactly what a preacher has said as absolute truth, how are they to mold it to anyone else's pain. How is a true follower suppose to relate to a women who needs an abortion when the preacher has told her that an abortion is the worst kind of sin (rather then focusing on, oh I don't know, massive world poverty). And what about all those heathens that are attacking religious folk with their filibuster? The list goes on and on. God, guns, and gays, right? Hopefully nature has taught us to think for ourselves. Yes to use such nature (i.e. our parents teachings/ our life experiences/ even the bible), but to do so realizing that each situation must be looked at on anew. In other words, to use the tools we have learned to paint new pictures, rather then using those tools to paint the same picture again. Perhaps that's what is means to be a progressive, to see things anew, even if we use the tools of the past, rather then blocking everything into past categories, even if it's square pegs in round holes.
As to Jim and concrete moral values, you are beginning to sound like Leo Strauss.
And while I agree with Strauss that a set of moral standards need to be defined, to prevent nihilism, I disagree with his (and his disciples, including Bush's) methods. Using Nazism to prevent the nihilism (i.e. everything has equal value) of the Weimar republic is not justified at all. Well, OK, so we're not Nazi Germany... yet, but maybe I should say promoting mass poverty, blind religious followings, and any number of other Bush policies, to prevent nihilism is not the answer. Rather, we should let the public "stare into the abyss", define what they want (or maybe I should say what they don't want, pain, either for individuals or for a society), and work from there.
I'm starting to rant and run on, so I'll stop, for now.