Friday, December 11, 2009

Christianity has been demoted by the political class

His Grace is a little pressed for time today, but he would like to feed his flock with this from Theodore Dalrymple, writing in the Daily Express:

By far the most significant thing about the case against Benjamin and Sharon Vogelenzang was that it reached a court of law in the first place. This evangelical Christian couple who run a hotel were accused of making derogatory remarks about the religion of one of their guests, Ericka Tazi, a Muslim convert, and thereby spreading religious hatred and contempt.

Mrs Tazi was found to have exaggerated the couple’s verbal abuse grossly but the fact that the case was thrown out of court should not blind us to the insidious and creeping reign of terror that the Government has introduced in Britain by facilitating this kind of prosecution.

While the criminal justice system actively promotes real crime by its refusal to repress it vigorously, it attempts to make criminals of Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang because they expressed forthright Christian beliefs.

For myself I do not much care to be buttonholed by religious enthusiasts but in a free country that is a situation with which citizens must be expected to cope on their own without resort to the courts.

Apart from this, however, there is the strong suspicion that if the boot had been on the other foot, if the Vogelenzangs had complained about remarks made by Mrs Tazi about their religion, no case would have come to court.

The reason for the difference in approach is an officially-sponsored indifference or hostility to anything which might be considered part of the European and British cultural and religious heritage, combined with a tender regard for any non- European and non-British cultural heritage.

This is now so marked a trait that it could almost be called racist. No British minister would go to Brick Lane in East London and say it was horribly Bangladeshi but a British minister had no compunction at all in complaining of an institution that it was “horribly white”.

British intellectuals, as George Orwell once remarked, have long harboured a hatred of their own country and its culture. This attitude has deeply infiltrated the political class and has therefore come to affect legislation. All cultures are equal except ours, which is the worst.

The first thing to notice about this attitude is that it is insincere. Those who adopt it are not genuine admirers of other cultures, for genuinely to admire other cultures it is necessary seriously to study them. To know another culture is not just a matter of slipping down once in a while to a restaurant that serves its cuisine: it is very hard work indeed and the more different that culture is from one’s own the harder the work it is.

So when members of our political class express their adherence to multiculturalism they are not expressing their love of other cultures, they are expressing hatred of their own and it is this which explains the discrepancy in the way a Christian who derides Islam can now expect to be treated by comparison with a Muslim who derides Christianity. The hatred of that section of the political class for their own country’s culture, traditions and past is insincere in another sense also.

By expressing that hatred they imagine themselves to be exhibiting their own moral superiority for all the world and especially the intelligentsia, to see. Their hatred is actually moral exhibitionism. We all know the kind of odious patriot who believes everything in his own country is best merely because it is his own and who therefore despises every thing about all other countries, from their language to their cooking to their way of dress.

Our political class is a mirror image of this kind of person but preens itself on being morally superior to him.

There is a yet more cynical reason for the political class’s hatred of their own culture: it is politically advantageous to them. The mass immigration that has been permitted into Britain in the last few years, with the concomitant ideological glorification of the multi cultural society, has had as its purpose the production of a permanent change in the nature of the British population, which can be relied upon to vote for ever for the kind of politicians who brought it about.

It is one thing to encourage immigration because your commerce is so strong that there is a labour shortage but quite another when neither of those conditions obtains. Our commerce was never strong and there never was a labour shortage. We imported people while there was still mass unemployment (admittedly disguised as sickness) merely to create a vote bank for those who brought this about.

No one wants a blind or bigoted patriotism that manifests itself as xenophobia and ignorant rejection of all that is foreign. It is good to be open to others but self-hatred is neither attractive nor constructive. It is not only insincere but unjustified, as a walk through the National Portrait Gallery would prove to anyone with an open mind.

We are fortunate enough to be the inheritors of a tradition as great as (though not necessarily greater than) any that exists in the world. Why should we reject it? I write these words from India, where it is far easier to find genuine and knowledgeable admirers of British culture than it is among our own political class. This surely is the saddest possible commentary on our condition.

45 Comments:

Blogger Frugal Dougal said...

I did predict in September that the Vogelenzang case would be thrown out of court...

11 December 2009 at 10:17  
Blogger Gnostic said...

It seems this rotten government won't be happy until an Englishman's home is a Muslim's mosque.

11 December 2009 at 10:22  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Yo your Gracieness,

I could not agree more with your sentiments regarding pride in your own country,However I think it is a little late to bemoan the fact that the racial landscape has changed forever,where we are is where we are ,also I would not assume that a persons color or cultural background dictates their political loyalties.
I am open minded about who I will be voting for and I know others like me are also,I take great pride like others in being British and any party that would try to diminish that would be rejected.

Enjoy India your Grace,I went in April for a holiday and loved it...but in my opinion not all Indians thought much of the UK.

11 December 2009 at 10:27  
Blogger English Viking said...

Stan,

His Grace is not in India, Theodore Dalrymple is.

11 December 2009 at 10:50  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

Immigration and multiculturalism unmasked. How they have been misused as political tools to secure a permanent block vote and deliberately wreck our indigenous culture.

There is only one comment I disagree with:

Apart from this, however, there is the strong suspicion that if the boot had been on the other foot, if the Vogelenzangs had complained about remarks made by Mrs Tazi about their religion, no case would have come to court.

If a Christian complained that their faith had been insulted by a Muslim, it would still be the Christian who would be charged and prosecuted. The complaint itself would be regarded as religious hatred and possibly racial harassment because there is a presumption that this is so. This attitude has become ingrained in the law enforcement psyche thanks to decades of destructive political indoctrination against our own traditions.

11 December 2009 at 11:02  
Blogger I am Stan said...

@English Viking 10:50 Stan,

His Grace is not in India, Theodore Dalrymple is.

Hahahahaha I stand corrected,thank you.

11 December 2009 at 11:06  
Anonymous Mark Blades said...

Excellent article. Incidentally, The Express was also the first to 'front page' this AGM scam. I haven't read the paper for years-I might have a look again.

11 December 2009 at 11:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

It has been written:

‘While the criminal justice system actively promotes real crime by its refusal to repress it vigorously, it attempts to make criminals of Mr and Mrs Vogelenzang because they expressed forthright Christian beliefs.’

There are five principal reasons for this, the first one is axiomatic to socialist thinking.

1. Christianity is false: so its categories of good and bad are to be ignored.
2. Secondly, having extinguished Christianity, the vacuum is to be filled by the faith of the socialists: the moral superiority of the absolutism of moral relativism.
3. Socialism (as opposed to Christianity) belives in the inherent goodness of man (it is the environment that makes men bad and not their lack of morality).
4. All religions are the same. They are all paths on the same mountain which eventually lead to the summit of the moral superiority of the absolutism of moral realtivism (of which the socialists are the guardians on Mount Olympus).
5. Even though all religions are the same; when they collide in the public square one has to triumph over the other – the one that is presumed to be the weakest is to win, as it is lower in the hierarchy of power.

11 December 2009 at 12:43  
Anonymous circus monkey said...

I wonder if anyone will ever identify the species of bug that our political and "hand wringing" classes are infested with - the one that keeps them wriggling and twisting with shame at their own history and culture. A bug is the only reason I can think of for the way that they keep thrashing around and sending people like this to court and refusing to let us celebrate Christmas in peace for fear that we may upset someone. Apart from noisy - and malicious - atheists, I have never heard of any Muslim, Sikh etc being upset by Christmas celebrations.

11 December 2009 at 13:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr circus monkey,

Outstanding!

I didn’t want to say that. That is a favourite device of the Left-liberal for suppressing Christianity in the public square: blame it on the blacks. They have abandoned the categories of ‘good’ and ‘bad’.

The real sinister motive of the Left-liberal for suppressing religion is this: the religious owe their ultimate loyalty to a superior moral authority than the absolutism of moral relativism which the Left-liberal needs to justify his wrong-doing and his perversity. And like the religious he too has an article of faith: ‘The Lord (moral relativism) will provide the sacrifice (– blame it on the blacks).’

11 December 2009 at 13:28  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

there's a man with an axe loose in these comments!

11 December 2009 at 14:21  
Blogger Kenpachi said...

I didn't know The Express had sensible material until I read this.

11 December 2009 at 14:31  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Hyatt,

Rest assured. It’s all the fault of that species called: the socialist.

11 December 2009 at 14:33  
Anonymous Adrian said...

Nice one D. Singh.

Oh so true...

11 December 2009 at 14:35  
Blogger English Viking said...

Jeremy,

'there's a man with an axe loose in these comments!'

Don't you like axes?

11 December 2009 at 15:29  
Blogger Theresa said...

Your Grace,

Slightly off topic, but Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Conner has refused the offer of a seat in the House of Lords. That is, if you didn't know already. Deo gratias..

11 December 2009 at 15:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Ms Theresa,

His Grace thanks you for that, but he did know. It is a pity, but it would have been a religio-political nightmare for canon lawyers.

11 December 2009 at 16:10  
Anonymous Carl Gardner said...

Your Grace,

I'm pleased the Vogelenzangs have been acquitted, but (no doubt predictably) as an atheist, it seems to me the point isn't Christianity "v" Islam at all. I think this case - the initial complaint to the police, the prosecution itself and the public defence campaign for the Vogelenzangs supported by the Christian Institute I think - is a symptom of a growing culture of complaint and litigation, claim and campaign by self-consciously committed religious people generally and by what I'd call religious activists in particular. Quite a few of these people (I don't say the Vogelenzangs) can fairly be called "religious nuts". The fact that it now feels a little controversial, and liable to cause offence even to use that old phrase is a symptom of what's been happening.

The "new atheism" and new assertive secularism some of us argue for is a reaction to all that. It was Bezhti that made me join the NSS - I was alarmed by the way a mob closed a play, with police and government looking on.

It's just that, because by the nature of things people of different religions disagree, they sometimes come into conflict with each other rather than, as they more often do, with the majority whose lives are not significantly influenced by religion, except in the form of demands and complaints made by others. The real conflict is between litigious, campaigning religion (the religitigation culture?) and the rest of us.

So let's all agree this prosecution was silly, as was (for instance) Christian Voice's complaint against Jerry Springer the Opera. Religion would seem less silly to people like me (for what it's worth), and get back some of the respect I think you'd like it to have, if there were fewer of these silly religious complaints.

11 December 2009 at 16:12  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

English Viking said...
Jeremy,

'there's a man with an axe loose in these comments!'

Don't you like axes?


They make me nervous but not as nervous as firearms.

11 December 2009 at 16:23  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Well said Mr Gardner.

I would agree with you 100%. This could have been any other two groups of people and the same thing could have happened.

It could have been a white couple and a black man, the white couple could have expressed what their opinions were of black culture on society. The black person could have then gone to the police and complained of racial discrimination.

It could have been a straight couple and a homosexual. They could have. Expressed how they find the homosexual act disgusting in their opinion. The homosexual could then go to the police, complain, and the couple get lifted for homophobia.

The list goes on.

What people need to appreciate that many different types of people all occupy one society. The majority of society makes rules that people must live by in order for all people to have an equal level of standing within that society. If you wish to remain part of that society then you do not have to accept everything that the society allows, you do not have to like everything that the society allows you do not have to take part in or do everything that the society allows but what you do have to do is at least tolerate everything that the society allows.

11 December 2009 at 16:27  
Anonymous len said...

Rubbish!

If you lived in Nazi Germany you would be compelled (by your reasoning )to go along with the crowd!

11 December 2009 at 17:20  
Blogger The Anti Christ said...

I am not well and this is as much as I can say, Thank You for this. Back to bed.

11 December 2009 at 18:18  
Blogger Red Maria said...

Our commerce was never strong and there never was a labour shortage

Eh?

What about after the Second World War?

11 December 2009 at 18:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

In the face of blind and bigotted nihilism Iwould choose blind and bigotted patriotsm.with the latter at least we will survive.

11 December 2009 at 23:47  
Blogger OldSouth said...

British intellectuals, as George Orwell once remarked, have long harboured a hatred of their own country and its culture. This attitude has deeply infiltrated the political class and has therefore come to affect legislation. All cultures are equal except ours, which is the worst.

Rest assured, it's not just a disease spread by British intellectuals! Walk the halls of American academia(especially those portions directly supported by tax dollars wrested from the citizenry), and the contempt for those citizens, and the society that makes their tenured lives possible is on obvious display.

One salutary effect of our present recession is a dramatic shrinkage of the tax base, with its resultant shrinking of dollars available to the universities. And, the taxpayers are just now beginning to pay attention to how those dollars are spent, and to whom they are funneled.

Interesting times ahead...

12 December 2009 at 00:00  
Anonymous Anon Anon said...

Old South - Marxists and Proud of It ...

But Forbidding the Crucifix doesn't always sit so well in the Bible Belt, I suspect. To say nothing of some of the other shenanikins.

Oh, I hope it does get interesting.

12 December 2009 at 00:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With their usual lack of forethought the left think that they are importing an electorate, who's gratitude to their benefactors (at the moment), knows no bounds, and will keep them in power forever.
What do they think will happen when(a)The money tap is turned off?,as it will inevitably have to be.
(b)When there are enough of them they realise that they can start rigging ballot's on their own behalf?.(as if that hasn't ocurred to them already)

12 December 2009 at 00:29  
Blogger David said...

"If you wish to remain part of that society then you do not have to accept everything that the society allows, you do not have to like everything that the society allows you do not have to take part in or do everything that the society allows but what you do have to do is at least tolerate everything that the society allows."

of course, one of the things society allows that must be tolerated is freedom of speech. i don't know what this poster's intent was, but i do know that some seem to use this line of thought to indicate that we silently tolerate every thought under the sun. though i do agree that we should be respectful of one another, we can still respectfully disagree, and voice those disagreements (even boldly, if we so choose). this is both the gift and burden of a free society.

12 December 2009 at 02:23  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

@David

In that case you seem to have got the point of my post exactly as it was intended.

At no point to I say we must "silently" tolerate it all I say is that you must tolerate it.

Indeed I am actually saying that not being allowed to voice your opinions without fear of persecution is wrong.

All I say is that if we want to remain part of that society we must tolerate what that society allows, and our society is supposed to allow free speech. Which is why I take issue at situations like this.

@Len

"Rubbish!

If you lived in Nazi Germany you would be compelled (by your reasoning )to go along with the crowd!"

Rubbish.

If you lived in Nazi Germany (by my reasoning) and you "wanted" to remain part of that society then you would have to go along with the crowd.

If you chose that what was happening in that society was not in agreement with your own moral standards/choices whatever then other choices are available to you, but they would certainly not include remaining part of the society that was allowing these things to happen.

You could leave that particular society and join another one that agrees with your moral code (as people done in Nazi Germany with defections and the like, although some of these were done for a self serving nature as well). You could choose to go against that particular society (which was shown by people willingly helping the jewish people by harbouring them inside their homes) but it would come as no surprise to these people that if caught that society would turn against them since they did not conform the norms of that society.

You don't seem to be able to appreciate the difference between tolerance and acceptance, but then again you have never shown yourself to be a very tolerent indivudual.

So explain to me again how my way of thinking means that you would go along with everything in Nazi Germany?

12 December 2009 at 11:14  
Blogger Dave H said...

I imagine most people would accept that incitement to violence should be a crime, what I find incredible is that it has reached the stage where the use of single words can now be a matter for police action. When did we cross this boundary and why was there no great protest over it? More relevant to the Vogelenzang case, when did upsetting someone’s feelings become a serious crime?

‘Whoosh. What was that?’

‘Your freedom of speech, mate’

‘That was quick. De we get another right of such fundamental importance?’

‘Sorry mate’

The Devils Kitchen contains the kind of language that best expresses my anger against this outrageous theft. Such matters are always relative but I certainly feel Britain is now a much less free country than at any time I have experienced.

(minor point of technical accuracy, though for Mr Daniels rather than His Grace: I think the phrase was ‘hideously white’. Sorry, I can’t give the name of the man that used it without commiting a hate crime against the LGBT community, and I don’t want the police kicking my door in at 3 a.m.)

12 December 2009 at 12:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How strange that the Crown Prosecution Service was so quick to prosecute the Christian hoteliers for opening their mouths and yet the CPS has been so reluctant to bring action against a moslem paedophile gang in Rotherham.

How strange too that the national media give front page coverage to the ‘crime’ committed by a Christian couple and yet totally ignore the sexual grooming of young girls by moslem men.

The local Rotherham Advertiser reports that ‘District Judge John Foster strongly criticised the eight month delay in bringing the men—charged with a total of 16 rapes—to court.’

http://www.rotherhamadvertiser.com/news.aspx?id=10103

Perhaps the CPS should be renamed. Christian Persecution Service?

12 December 2009 at 12:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 12:36

It could be that the delay in bringing the Rotherham case to court was due to the CPS trying to decide who had jurisdiction. As seen in a vision by Rowan Williams and reported by the Times and Telegraph last year, Labour has quietly allowed the establishment of dozens of sharia law courts in England. The CPS might then have been perplexed by who to charge – the ‘alleged’ rapists or the ‘alleged’ victims for ‘allegedly’ allowing themselves to be abused. Then of course, there is the thorny issue of witnesses. Remember, ‘evidence’ given by men is worth twice that of females. Of course, if the females are non-believers their evidence may carry even less weight? Therefore, if the ratio of abused females to male abusers is less than 2:1 the abusers get off. Even worse, what we used to think of as ‘victims’ might then be punished. For the moment at least, stoning is not an option. But who knows what might be slipped in by a few more years islamo-marxist Labour rule.

12 December 2009 at 15:12  
Anonymous len said...

The Glovner,

Gods moral law is the only standard which can act as a yardstick to the human condition.An atheist, Renan, predicted that the collapse of the supernatural would lead to the collapse of moral convictions. Evolution’s naturalism has ousted supernaturalism, and we can see moral convictions collapsing. The Christian culture is crumbling; and the “Post-Christian era” has begun. That is the final fruit of evolutionism. In 1859, Professor Sedgwick of Cambridge warned Darwin that, through his evolution ideas, “Humanity would suffer a damage that might brutalize it and sink the human race into a lower state of degradation than any into which it has fallen since its written records tell us of its history.”

12 December 2009 at 19:59  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Your gods moral law is just your subjective moral law hidden behind blind wall of faith.

So explain to me again how my way of thinking means that you would go along with everything in Nazi Germany?

13 December 2009 at 00:23  
Anonymous len said...

You Mr Glovner have no way of discerning right and wrong!

When man ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil he decided to abandon Gods moral law and make up his own.

God knows good and evil by comparing everything by His own nature.God is light, in him there is no darkness.

There is a new atheist’s ad out with a picture of Santa Claus and the words: “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” This is clever, but is it possible? Let’s analyze it more carefully.
First, if there is no Moral Law Giver (God), then how can there be a moral law that prescribes: “Be good.” Every prescription has a prescriber, and this is a moral prescription.
Second, what does “good” mean? How is good to be defined.? If it can mean anything for anyone, then it means nothing for anyone. It is total relativism. Being “good” for some (like Nazis) can mean killing Jews. But for Jews it is evil. Hence, on this view there is no objective difference between good and evil.

( From can Atheists be good without God . Norman Geisler)

13 December 2009 at 09:32  
Blogger OurSally said...

@ len

It is indeed possible to be good just because you think that is the proper way to behave. If we believe Plato and his ilk then indeed being good serves the individual just as much as those around him.

If we stick to "love thy neighbour" and apply it rigorously we cannot go far wrong. People brought up in a civilised milieu know instinctively what is good.

Religion is an attempt to formulate "being good" in everyday rules for those who don't have the time or inclination to think it out for themselves. If it stopped there it would be fine. But religion has taken up a life of its own, being misused and abused to promote actions which may be advantageous in the short term for that religious group, but are not good for humanity as a whole.

I am an atheist and hope I behave in a manner which benefits humanity as well as myself. But, to be honest, I was formed by a strict Low Church and Methodist upbringing. Without this I would not be able to agree with Plato.

In a perfect world all children could be brought up to behave in a good way at all times. This takes a lot of time and effort, so even as an atheist, I would say that religion is a good thing, as it is a shorthand way of instilling morals. But is has to be a "good" religion. Love thy neighbour, indeed.

14 December 2009 at 08:00  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"You Mr Glovner have no way of discerning right and wrong!"

No real need for the exclamation mark. I would have to disagree, I do have a way of discerning right and wrong. I do it by judging actions against my subjective morality of what I believe to be right and wrong.

Just like you do, only difference is that you are arrogant to believe that your subjective morals are somehow the single truth and in your head becomes an objective moral code. Isn't arrogance frowned upon in the teachings of your religion?

But let's examine your arrogance in more detail:

"First, if there is no Moral Law Giver (God), then how can there be a moral law that prescribes: “Be good.” "

Short answer is there can't. What there is, is a society which is inhabited by lots of different individuals all with their own subjective morality. All these individual subjective moralities come together over time to create an overall objective moral code adopted by that society which encompasses most peoples individual subjective morality.

Overall the moral code stems from a self serving sense of preservation which exists in all living organisims. As we have evolved to live in social groups then this individual sense of self preservation has evolved to create a sense of group preservation. Or as OurSally pointed out "Love thy neighbour". Which doesn't come from the church and existed long before christianity did. All the morals that the churchs preach (which don't refer to the blind worshiping of their gods) can just as easily come around without the intervention of the church as it benefits the individual and the social group that they inhabit.

This explains why different people that inhabit different social groups have different moral absolutes. This also happens within different facets of the same group. There are a number of different christian religions, all of them worshiping the same god, yet all of them don't follow exactly the same moral code, how did that happen len? Could it be because the individuals that originally inhabited the different facets of the christian religion made up the overall moral code that each of these shades of christianity follow and now the people that join them choose to join the one that their subjective morals mostly match? Of course that's the people that choose to join it, you also have the early inductees that you can just indoctrinate with endless lies and threats of eternal suffering.

"Being “good” for some (like Nazis) can mean killing Jews. But for Jews it is evil. Hence, on this view there is no objective difference between good and evil."

Spot on, I think you have got it. And this is how it is everywhere. There is no thing as an objective moral absolute. There is only individual subjective morals which depend on context.

You would say murder is morally wrong, I would say murder is wrong except when it can be morally justified. It can in some cases be morally justified when it serves the overall social group. There is the old one asking if you could go back in time and killing Hitler before he came to power would you and would it be morally wrong. I don't think it would be morally wrong or right, it would be morally justified as morals are not absolutes when given in context.

(From The Glovners hand on Crany's blog since he chooses to write things himself just like he is capable of thinking for himself, rather than resorting to endless quotes copied and pasted from wikipedia)

14 December 2009 at 09:42  
Anonymous len said...

Murder morally justified?When it serves the overall group?
So you would agree( by your reasoning) that it was OK to attack minority groups)

( By the hand of len who is not too arrogant and small minded to look up and consider others works.
Perhaps you Mr Glovner should be a little more open minded rather than stick to your own narrow views?)

14 December 2009 at 17:50  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Glovner,
You seem to be groping around in the dark trying to explain some sort of 'moral code' which seems to me to be more like mob rule.
Which is precisely my point, without a law giver there is no law, only mob rule.
Or as the bible puts it( if you will allow me to quote the Bible ( "everyone doing what was right in their own eyes" Judges 17:6 )

14 December 2009 at 18:13  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

"So you would agree( by your reasoning) that it was OK to attack minority groups?"

And you managed to get to this conclusion how?

If you actually take in anything I have said rather than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming that your god is real you would see that I said one persons moral right and wrong are not another persons moral right and wrong. So where you or I could say that the attacking of a minority group (if that is the crass example you want to use clearly in the hope you can label me a racist) is morally wrong another person or social group may not agree with that.

This is because there is no objective moral absolutes. There are only indivdual subjective morals which mesh together over time to create a sociatal moral code which in general benefits the individuals and the social group they inhabit.

It is not quite as simplistic as mob rule, however that certainly does have a part to play in it. But it must also be taken along with an evolved moral philosphy over thousands of years.

15 December 2009 at 09:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner

States: ‘So where you or I could say that the attacking of a minority group… is morally wrong another person or social group may not agree with that.’

And goes onto state with gusto:

‘This is because there is no objective moral absolutes.’

In other words, Mr Glovner, is saying he has no objective basis upon which to condemn the holocaust, for example.

He has discounted condemning it on his subjective basis because as he states: ‘: ‘So where you or I could say that the attacking of a minority group… is morally wrong another person or social group may not agree with that.’

15 December 2009 at 09:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

‘This is because there is no objective moral absolutes.’

15 December 2009 at 09:30  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I at no point said I do not condemn it on a subjective basis.

Indeed I do condemn it on a subjective basis, judged against my own individual subjective moral code. Doesn't mean to say everyone would agree with me though.

I see we are heading for the typical D.Singh argument clincher?

"I do not agree with you therefore you are a Nazi fascist."

"In other words, Mr Glovner, is saying he has no objective basis upon which to condemn the holocaust, for example."

Not only that, I am saying you don't or anybody on this planet doesn't. We do all however have an indiividual subjective moral code to judge it by and since we are all initially self serving organisims where a society benefits our survival we generally have moral codes which mostly agree with each other.

The only difference is that you think your moral code is absolute and given to you by god.

But on the one hand you say I lack objective morals and hint that I agree with the Nazi's (which is nonsense) but on the other hypothetically it would be wrong to murder Hitler (which I would consider to be morally justified) and stop the holocaust from happening?

What a mixed up life you lead.

15 December 2009 at 12:05  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Glovner states:

(Quoting me) "In other words, Mr Glovner, is saying he has no objective basis upon which to condemn the holocaust, for example."

‘Not only that, I am saying you don't or anybody on this planet doesn't. We do all however have an indiividual subjective moral code to judge it by and since we are all initially self serving organisims where a society benefits our survival we generally have moral codes which mostly agree with each other.’

Is that from Mein Kampf (Ludendorf edition, 1932 (Stuttgart Press)?

15 December 2009 at 12:13  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

And there it is, right on cue.

How anything I have said procalims me to be a Nazi is something that clearly you understand but I can't see it.

Then again I struggle most of the time to follow your ridiculous illogical rants.

15 December 2009 at 13:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older