Churchy Teens rally against pop culture

[::Major_Baker::]

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/22/gw.teen.christians/index.html

-- At one point in Jared Hutchins' young life, the Beatles were a big problem.
"I had to stop listening to them for a while," said Hutchins, who lives in Cumming, Georgia, and plays the piano, guitar and harmonica. He said the group's world view "had a negative effect on me," and made him irritable and angry.
"God owns my life, not the Beatles," he said simply.
snipp....

Acquire the Fire -- regional rallies held across the country -- and BattleCry -- the larger rallies held this year in only three cities -- are the products of the evangelical Christian organization Teen Mania.
One part concert, one part Christian revival, the rallies seek to "stage a reverse revolution" against secular popular culture.
snip...

And so, Ron Luce, the 46-year-old founder of the organization, has waged a modern-day crusade against "purveyors of popular culture," whom he has condemned as "the enemy."

Who are the purveyors? Those who watch the shows, listen to the music, and watch the movies? Common Americans? Kids?

"God, I ask that as we do this BattleCry, Lord, that you would reveal yourself to the teenagers, God, here, God," Mindy Peterson, shouted.
...*crickets chirping*...

"We don't have to be branded by the culture, we are branded by God," he said. "Be who God created you to be."
snip...

I ask you, would you let your child attend an event such as this? I don't see it as a super negative thing, but I can't imagine ever living my life for someone or something else.

[Lumpen Prole]

Yawn...

[Ethos]

I have no problem with a counter-culture revolution, though I do object to the concept of identifying the effort as a "war" or those who partake in "pop culture" as "the enemy".

People need a cause, however I could think of far more productive campaigns to become involved in. Would it not be more Christian to serve the homeless and the hungry rather than speaking against MTV viewers or Beetles fans?

Ethos

[steveksux]

I have no problem with a counter-culture revolution, though I do object to the concept of identifying the effort as a "war" or those who partake in "pop culture" as "the enemy".

People need a cause, however I could think of far more productive campaigns to become involved in. Would it not be more Christian to serve the homeless and the hungry rather than speaking against MTV viewers or Beetles fans?

EthosI think the issue is not one of productivity or finding the "most" Christian like cause to get involved in.

Its simply a fear mongering tactic to get parents scared of the "secular world" as the work of the Devil, to drive up donations on Sunday and get people worked up for political purposes. Its all about manufacturing a crisis to unify the flock.

People flock to the concept of an "enemy" that needs defeating. Look at how the country was once the Soviet Union collapsed. A whole generation defined by the US/Soviet cold war suddenly found itself with no dire threat facing them anymore. It was terrifying! :lol:

Randy

[Craig]

I think these Christians would have better spent their time if they had volunteered or done something to help people or otherwise express their love, rather than holding a revolution against pop culture.

[The Big Bog]

Sounds like Oprah better put on her battle fatigues. It's war!

[Blueangel]

Each to their own but it sounds more like a bunch of teens with clinical depression rather than a counter culture. Why can't they just become Goths like any normal depressed teen?!
A couple of good years wearing all black and huge chunks of metal tends to sort them out, proof being...how many Goths do you know over 40? :cool:

[Atticus]

Who are the purveyors? Those who watch the shows, listen to the music, and watch the movies? Common Americans? Kids?How about Capitol Cities/ABC...Sony...Disney...GE....The Murdoch Group...Madison Avenue...aren't these the same people Chomsky complains about? Same complaints, different perspective.I ask you, would you let your child attend an event such as this? I don't see it as a super negative thing, but I can't imagine ever living my life for someone or something else.Another example of someone who supports freedom of speech--for all except those he disagrees with.

Those who say these kids should be working at soup kitchen--who's to say they don't? This is one example of a Christian rally, but not the only one.

What I see is criticism of our corporate, capitalist culture that teaches disrespect for other humans in favor of profit, pleasure, and selfishness--why is this okay from from a left-wing one perspective, but this religious perspective is somehow illegitimate?

[Groucho]

Hey, now, come on... they have every right to their opinion, and no one here is saying they don't.

We, of course, have every right to criticize them in return.

[Atticus]

Hey, now, come on... they have every right to their opinion, and no one here is saying they don't.Really?I ask you, would you let your child attend an event such as this?
We, of course, have every right to criticize them in return.Of course, and I get challenge that criticism. We might even have an interesting discussion about the story if someone wanted to engage me rather than pretending I'm just shouting them down.

[Groucho]

I'd take these people a lot more seriously if it wasn't their religion telling them that the mass culture is too obsessed with sex and violence (to which I agree, actually).

Religious kids claiming that they have been harmed by exposure to this stuff is just hard to take too seriously; they are most likely just saying what their religion has taught them they should say. Just like gays who are religious claim that they have been cured by religion, or who preach that religion saved them from that terrible life of sin.

In other words, I doubt their sincerity and motives.

How's that for engaging in a discussion?

[MikeD4o7]

What I see is criticism of our corporate, capitalist culture that teaches disrespect for other humans in favor of profit, pleasure, and selfishness--why is this okay from from a left-wing one perspective, but this religious perspective is somehow illegitimate?

The pleasure and selfishness one I guess you could play in. From the article though, it seems like it's mostly a rally against behavior considered immoral by Christianity that they see in teenagers. Drug use, pre-marital sex, pro-choice sentiments, and homosexuality.

Lets say hypothetically that the only goals of the rally were to promote kindness to fellow human beings, because that's what Jesus, the Son of God, preached. Even then I say it would be illegitimate. It would be the same as convincing a schoolyard bully not to take other kids lunch money because that money is cursed, and will bring him a week of very bad luck for each dollar he steals. Even if you reach the goal of stopping the behavior, the method is still illegitimate.... and if you saw that being preached to kids around the world in an organized movement... you would probably be disturbed, and for good reason. If good things can be taught on things that can't be tested by reason, then so can bad ones. It's a dangerous precedent. I really think that it's only because religious beliefs are commonly held that most people don't find them shocking or disturbing.

[Atticus]

I'd take these people a lot more seriously if it wasn't their religion telling them that the mass culture is too obsessed with sex and violence (to which I agree, actually).

Religious kids claiming that they have been harmed by exposure to this stuff is just hard to take too seriously; they are most likely just saying what their religion has taught them they should say. Just like gays who are religious claim that they have been cured by religion, or who preach that religion saved them from that terrible life of sin.

In other words, I doubt their sincerity and motives.

How's that for engaging in a discussion?So what is it that brings you to the same conclusion they have reaged, and why are your motivations more sincere?

Dr. MIZER used to have a sig line I really liked--that our behavior becomes habit, that habits become identity, and identity becomes character. If these religious youth are concerned that their culture (what their society says should be their identity) encourages them to engage in behaviors that destroy their character, what difference does it make what other features of their lives compete to influence that character? And if they use religion as a motivator to resist that pop culture, why is religion worse than, say a commitment to environmentalism or class equality?

[Atticus]

The pleasure and selfishness one I guess you could play in. From the article though, it seems like it's mostly a rally against behavior considered immoral by Christianity that they see in teenagers. Drug use, pre-marital sex, pro-choice sentiments, and homosexuality.

Lets say hypothetically that the only goals of the rally were to promote kindness to fellow human beings, because that's what Jesus, the Son of God, preached. Even then I say it would be illegitimate. It would be the same as convincing a schoolyard bully not to take other kids lunch money because that money is cursed, and will bring him a week of very bad luck for each dollar he steals. Even if you reach the goal of stopping the behavior, the method is still illegitimate.... and if you saw that being preached to kids around the world in an organized movement... you would probably be disturbed, and for good reason. If good things can be taught on things that can't be tested by reason, then so can bad ones. It's a dangerous precedent. I really think that it's only because religious beliefs are commonly held that most people don't find them shocking or disturbing.And yet many people who claim to follow reason manage to destroy themselves. Hedonism is a perfectly logical but self-destructive philosophy, for example. So is unbridled capitalism.

If you begin with the premise that anything religious is illegitimate, then I suppose it follows that anything derived from it is illegitimate also. But we don't share that opening major premise, and I don't think you've proven it, so....at the moment it's just an unshared enthymeme.

[Groucho]

And if they use religion as a motivator to resist that pop culture, why is religion worse than, say a commitment to environmentalism or class equality?

If that's what works for them, fine...but they are trying to convince others, and that won't work with religion. If you're not a believer, saying "do what I say or the power I believe in will punish you" does nothing to someone who does not believe in the existence of that power.

Class equality or environmentalism can convince people of its worthiness through logic and reason. Religion is the opposite of logic and reason.

[Atticus]

If that's what works for them, fine...but they are trying to convince others, They are? Really? Where did you see that in the article?

[Groucho]

Well, according to the article, they circled and prayed at City Hall in San Francisco, apparently to pray for those heathens out there. They certainly are not shying away from publicity, and it's not as if they are just saying to their own members that they shouldn't participate in these evil things. They're not just praying for their fellow Christians.

[Soren]

What I see is criticism of our corporate, capitalist culture that teaches disrespect for other humans in favor of profit, pleasure, and selfishness--why is this okay from from a left-wing one perspective, but this religious perspective is somehow illegitimate?Both critiques are quite legitimate if we let greed make merchandise of men's souls. I find much of pop culture ugly and perverse. I don't really even go out and protest it, but I certainly avoid much of it.If you begin with the premise that anything religious is illegitimate, then I suppose it follows that anything derived from it is illegitimate also. But we don't share that opening major premise, and I don't think you've proven it, so....at the moment it's just an unshared enthymeme.Agreed. This is much of why I find many Religion forum threads tiresome in the extreme. I've seen religion make changes in me and in others which makes them better citizens of our nation and more apt to help others in need.

[ScummyD]

Maybe these Christians could sit down with the Islamists and find some common ground.

[Atticus]

Well, according to the article, they circled and prayed at City Hall in San Francisco, apparently to pray for those heathens out there. They certainly are not shying away from publicity, and it's not as if they are just saying to their own members that they shouldn't participate in these evil things. They're not just praying for their fellow Christians.But you said they are "trying to convince others." Praying for others is at least harmless, or do you disagree?

It's your contention that religion is so terrible that they owe it to everyone else to keep themselves quiet, avoid publicity, and do they're terrible praying in private?

Unless they dupe their friends into thinking this mass meeting is a secular rock concert or something, I fail to see how your objection applies. Did they not get the proper permits? :shrug:

[Groucho]

What possible purpose does having a rally in a public place do except to attract attantion to yourself in order to get publicity and to convince others of your cause?

[Soren]

What possible purpose does having a rally in a public place do except to attract attantion to yourself in order to get publicity and to convince others of your cause?The horror!:rolleyes:

[Groucho]

The horror!:rolleyes:

We've obviously gone so many posts that people are missing the original idea.

I said that if this group was pushing its agenda in public, then we have the right to criticize them. I was challenged: What makes you think they were doing so? I gave examples from the article.

I am not criticising them for exercising their rights. They have every right to pray in public and try to converst me. I am merely exercising mine in commenting upon them and what I think of them.

[MikeD4o7]

And yet many people who claim to follow reason manage to destroy themselves. Hedonism is a perfectly logical but self-destructive philosophy, for example. So is unbridled capitalism.

If you begin with the premise that anything religious is illegitimate, then I suppose it follows that anything derived from it is illegitimate also. But we don't share that opening major premise, and I don't think you've proven it, so....at the moment it's just an unshared enthymeme.

I don't think there's a way to answer this without debating some of the roots of the whole issue. Basically, I feel that morality comes from a combination of empathy and reason. If any person is acting with empathy towards another being, and using reason to the best of their ability to decide their actions in accordance with empathy, then they're acting morally. I really don't think there's a single situation or moral dilemma that I can imagine where this doesn't hold true, or where this definition is lacking in any way. Also, I really feel that if you think it through, it explains quite a bit about why we just *know* that certain things are wrong.

For example, in the movie Short Circuit, whenever anybody tricks Johnny5 or tries to hurt him, we realize that's wrong. Why? He wasn't created by God, so he has no soul. When it comes down to it, he's just nuts and bolts, and some programmed intelligence. There's no reason for a Christian audience to see anything wrong with taking a robot apart for its parts... yet everybody realizes that its' wrong to take him apart against his will. It's because we empathize with him, we see that he's aware, that he feels pain.. physical or emotional.

Why are we up in arms over Michael Vick's treatment of dogs, but we have no problem eradicating a virus? We can empathize with a dog... we see that they experience pain in a similar way to ourselves. We know that viruses don't experience anything like that.

Why do we treat a 6 year old or mentally challenged person that kills somebody differently than we do a 35 year old with an office job that does the same thing? It's because we know that the powers of reasoning are not the same in all people... and we all know that the ability to reason does affect the morality of the action.

This explanation even solves the question of why some things seem so morally gray. For example, lets say that you're ordered to torture one person, and if you refuse, 10 others will be executed. Already, it's clear why this creates problems in our minds, and why religion is so lacking in a clear answer to this kind of question (or even if religion did provide a clear answer, we'd pretend that it wasn't so clear). Empathy and reason can be applied to reach either result.


The more examples you think of, the more it becomes apparent that empathy and reason really are the basis of morality, rather than the seemingly arbitrary whims of the universe's creator. In all of these situations we recognize what's moral and we recognize the degrees even when there's no guidance from religion.


Now with that premise established (I'm not saying it shouldn't be challenged, but now that you know where I'm coming from on that) I would say that anytime religion doesn't agree with reason, it's illegitimate. Reason is the only tool that has ever gotten humanity anywhere, and even that can't be argued against without attempting to utilize reason itself. It's almost self-evident that reason is absolutely necessary to reach any kind of truth, so much so that even within any religion, no consensus is ever reached among the followers without the use of reason.


Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that we'll have an instant utopia if everyone agreed to what I said. There's plenty of decisions that are still very difficult, plenty of misconceptions that could easily lead to bad results, plenty of results that are probably inevitable anyways, and plenty of negative emotions that are just part of human nature... BUT... in any situation where we could look at a person who is empathizing with others to the the best of their ability, and is trying their best to use reason to decide their actions... I don't think that person could ever be labeled immoral even if their reasoning powers fail them and the results are disastrous.



I hope that didn't seem like too much of a tangent, but I think it's pretty clear after that why I think any kind of values that are held simply on religious doctrine as illegitimate.

[Lumpen Prole]

There is no logical reason to adopt one moral philosophy if a more reasonable one exists (assuming, of course, that one is choosing for no reasons other than logic and reason). More reasonable moral philosophies exist, and so it would be unreasonable to adopt another. This would apply to hedonism.

[Atticus]

We've obviously gone so many posts that people are missing the original idea.

I said that if this group was pushing its agenda in public, then we have the right to criticize them. I was challenged: What makes you think they were doing so? I gave examples from the article.

I am not criticising them for exercising their rights. They have every right to pray in public and try to converst me. I am merely exercising mine in commenting upon them and what I think of them.And no one objected to your doing that. But you went further to suggest that their cause was to "convince others." In fact, they were rallying other Christians to their cause. That is, they were not trying to convert people to their point of view, only to get those already convinced to commit to another element of the same belief. The fact that they prayed for others was not trying to convince them. Again, if they were regularly finding non-Christians and dragging them to their rallies under false pretense, that would be a different story--but there's no suggestion of that here.

And so I say again, what is wrong with using a set of values to criticize pop culture when the target of your message is others with similar values? That's what we see in the article, as I read it.

[Atticus]

I don't think there's a way to answer this without debating some of the roots of the whole issue. Basically, I feel that morality comes from a combination of empathy and reason. If any person is acting with empathy towards another being, and using reason to the best of their ability to decide their actions in accordance with empathy, then they're acting morally. I really don't think there's a single situation or moral dilemma that I can imagine where this doesn't hold true, or where this definition is lacking in any way. Also, I really feel that if you think it through, it explains quite a bit about why we just *know* that certain things are wrong.

For example, in the movie Short Circuit, whenever anybody tricks Johnny5 or tries to hurt him, we realize that's wrong. Why? He wasn't created by God, so he has no soul. When it comes down to it, he's just nuts and bolts, and some programmed intelligence. There's no reason for a Christian audience to see anything wrong with taking a robot apart for its parts... yet everybody realizes that its' wrong to take him apart against his will. It's because we empathize with him, we see that he's aware, that he feels pain.. physical or emotional.

Why are we up in arms over Michael Vick's treatment of dogs, but we have no problem eradicating a virus? We can empathize with a dog... we see that they experience pain in a similar way to ourselves. We know that viruses don't experience anything like that.

Why do we treat a 6 year old or mentally challenged person that kills somebody differently than we do a 35 year old with an office job that does the same thing? It's because we know that the powers of reasoning are not the same in all people... and we all know that the ability to reason does affect the morality of the action.

This explanation even solves the question of why some things seem so morally gray. For example, lets say that you're ordered to torture one person, and if you refuse, 10 others will be executed. Already, it's clear why this creates problems in our minds, and why religion is so lacking in a clear answer to this kind of question (or even if religion did provide a clear answer, we'd pretend that it wasn't so clear). Empathy and reason can be applied to reach either result.


The more examples you think of, the more it becomes apparent that empathy and reason really are the basis of morality, rather than the seemingly arbitrary whims of the universe's creator. In all of these situations we recognize what's moral and we recognize the degrees even when there's no guidance from religion.


Now with that premise established (I'm not saying it shouldn't be challenged, but now that you know where I'm coming from on that) I would say that anytime religion doesn't agree with reason, it's illegitimate. Reason is the only tool that has ever gotten humanity anywhere, and even that can't be argued against without attempting to utilize reason itself. It's almost self-evident that reason is absolutely necessary to reach any kind of truth, so much so that even within any religion, no consensus is ever reached among the followers without the use of reason.


Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying that we'll have an instant utopia if everyone agreed to what I said. There's plenty of decisions that are still very difficult, plenty of misconceptions that could easily lead to bad results, plenty of results that are probably inevitable anyways, and plenty of negative emotions that are just part of human nature... BUT... in any situation where we could look at a person who is empathizing with others to the the best of their ability, and is trying their best to use reason to decide their actions... I don't think that person could ever be labeled immoral even if their reasoning powers fail them and the results are disastrous.



I hope that didn't seem like too much of a tangent, but I think it's pretty clear after that why I think any kind of values that are held simply on religious doctrine as illegitimate.So you think that a values system based on a transitory emotion (one surely perceived somewhat differently by each person) is more legitimate than one based on a scripture? Hmmmm...

Iwould also suggest that while reason gets us a great many good places, something masquerading as reason gets us everywhere else--and we often find we can't tell the difference until much later.

If reason led us invariably to the ideal good, reasonable people would never disagree--and we clearly see that eventuality contradicted here in these forums everyday.

[Atticus]

There is no logical reason to adopt one moral philosophy if a more reasonable one exists (assuming, of course, that one is choosing for no reasons other than logic and reason). More reasonable moral philosophies exist, and so it would be unreasonable to adopt another. This would apply to hedonism.Given a certain set of premises (pleasure is the highest good and long life is not important), logic would lead us to hedonism. It's isn't logic or reason that leads inevitably to one moral philosophy--it's the premises that support the logic which are determining.

[Lumpen Prole]

Given a certain set of premises (pleasure is the highest good and long life is not important), logic would lead us to hedonism. It's isn't logic or reason that leads inevitably to one moral philosophy--it's the premises that support the logic which are determining.

And given no primary assumptions whatsoever (pleasure being the highest good, for example) other than free will exists (a requirement for any ethical system) the categorical imperative is derived from pure reason.

And your assertion that all "reasonable people" would agree on an ethical philosophy if something "else" didn't exist is absurd. You imply that people can just "be reasonable"; that people can either be entirely reasonable or unreasonable. But reasoning isn't some activity anyone can just participate in to one absolute degree; it's an activity that one can participate in and that others can be better or worse at it than you are. Or perhaps a better way to put it is to say that any particular body of ideas (such as an entire ethical theory) isn't necessarily composed of exclusively reasonable or unreasonable ideas. Some ideas are therefore more reasonable than others.

[Atticus]

And given no primary assumptions whatsoever (pleasure being the highest good, for example) other than free will exists (a requirement for any ethical system) the categorical imperative is derived from pure reason. A concept I find entirely problematic.

And your assertion that all "reasonable people" would agree on an ethical philosophy if something "else" didn't exist is absurd. You imply that people can just "be reasonable"; that people can either be entirely reasonable or unreasonable. But reasoning isn't some activity anyone can just participate in to one absolute degree; it's an activity that one can participate in and that others can be better or worse at it than you are.Well aren't you full of yourself! Everyone believes himself to be more reasonable than others. Most often differences of opinion occur not because two opponents practice better worse worse levels of reason. Rather, they occur because two opponents hold different warrants to begin with, and they reason to different conclusions based on those different warrants.

Each of us tends to believe himself to be the most reasonable of all. Operating unreflectively on that assumption is a flaw of ego.

[Lumpen Prole]

A concept I find entirely problematic.

Well aren't you full of yourself! Everyone believes himself to be more reasonable than others. Most often differences of opinion occur not because two opponents practice better worse worse levels of reason. Rather, they occur because two opponents hold different warrants to begin with, and they reason to different conclusions based on those different warrants.

Each of us tends to believe himself to be the most reasonable of all. Operating unreflectively on that assumption is a flaw of ego.

Interesting. It's only reasonable that one would think their position most reasonable if they derived their position (to the best of their knowledge) entirely from reason. But suppose I derive some answer to a question based on pure reason (as far as I am honestly aware of). And now suppose another person derives an answer to the exact same question which is not identical to my own... and that I adopt it because I reasonably conclude (as far as I am honestly aware) that that answer is a more reasonable one.

If you yourself have never refined for position on any subject, then I eagerly await your response. But by now I think my point is clear.

I would also like to make it clear that I have nothing against you personally. I get the impression that you think I am replying to you with some degree of animosity, which I assure you I am not. We simply disagree, apparently. And I hope we can both agree that if personal rivalry or emotion or some such thing is out of the picture, one side of any argument is probably more reasonable than the other, and that the reasonable thing to do would be to adopt the more reasonable position despite which position one holds prior to the disagreement. If you agree, my point is proven; if not, is there any point in continuing?

[Atticus]

Interesting. It's only reasonable that one would think their position most reasonable if they derived their position (to the best of their knowledge) entirely from reason. But suppose I derive some answer to a question based on pure reason (as far as I am honestly aware of). And now suppose another person derives an answer to the exact same question which is not identical to my own... and that I adopt it because I reasonably conclude (as far as I am honestly aware) that that answer is a more reasonable one.

If you yourself have never refined for position on any subject, then I eagerly await your response. But by now I think my point is clear.

I would also like to make it clear that I have nothing against you personally. I get the impression that you think I am replying to you with some degree of animosity, which I assure you I am not. We simply disagree, apparently. And I hope we can both agree that if personal rivalry or emotion or some such thing is out of the picture, one side of any argument is probably more reasonable than the other, and that the reasonable thing to do would be to adopt the more reasonable position despite which position one holds prior to the disagreement. If you agree, my point is proven; if not, is there any point in continuing?I don't impute to you any personal animosity, nor do I have any for you. But your position, if I understand it, derives from the notion that to equally reasonable people cannot maintain a disagreement based on different warrants. Perhaps you don't know what I mean by warrants, or perhaps you don't agree with the idea that it is first premises rather than "reasonableness" that makes the difference in most arguments..

[Groucho]

And no one objected to your doing that. But you went further to suggest that their cause was to "convince others." In fact, they were rallying other Christians to their cause.

Even so, so what? Did I say they couldn't do that?

I think you're reading something into my comments that isn't there. If you go back, my point was that these people can't complain if we criticize them, and I said that much of their comments would fall on deaf ears. I never said they were only trying to reach out to nonChristians.

I think you're trying to find disagreements where there are none. Shouldn't we be discussing the underlying issues instead of this silly stuff? Like your next comment:

And so I say again, what is wrong with using a set of values to criticize pop culture when the target of your message is others with similar values? That's what we see in the article, as I read it.

Because these are religious values only, not shared by people not of that faith. One of their "values" is that homosexuality is a sin. Why? Because they think their god says it is. That's not a value any more than "don't eat pork" is a value. Just because a religious person believes something strongly doesn't make it a "value."

[Mickey Shane]

Values, are at best, subjective.

Props to the kids for putting down the man. Yep, that's right. Appealing to the kid's IDs for money is downright disgusting. I hope that they enjoy their notoriety while it lasts. It could be short-lived. Sex doth selleth.

[serenity]

How about Capitol Cities/ABC...Sony...Disney...GE....The Murdoch Group...Madison Avenue...aren't these the same people Chomsky complains about? Same complaints, different perspective.

No, it’s totally different. That an object is shared as a focus of criticism doesn’t make the criticisms equivalent. In fact, they have virtually nothing in common.

Chomsky hates them because they disseminate propaganda in favor of power; he also dislikes concentrations of power generally. But when it comes to the content of pop culture, he has a libertarian view of it.

That is, Chomsky focuses on institutional factors that restrict human freedom.

Luce focuses on the freedom itself as the enemy. Obviously, as a successful businessman (his business being getting paid vast sums of money from the parents of these teens), he absolutely supports concentrations of power and wealth. He also (openly, I add) advocates for indoctrination and obedience to God’s will…that is, obedience to Luce’s version of what God’s will might be.

The two complaints have almost literally nothing to do with each other. Despite their shared subject, they are practically opposite. And I don’t mean left vs right; I mean their complaints are not even in the same world.

Look at it another way: Chomsky rails against the media conglomerations. He would continue to do so, and based on the exact same principles, if they were totally Christianized, or utterly pagan. Because that’s all beside the point.

Luce, on the other hand, would adore popular culture so long as the CONTENT was pleasing to him.

[heel31ok]

If that's what works for them, fine...but they are trying to convince others, and that won't work with religion. If you're not a believer, saying "do what I say or the power I believe in will punish you" does nothing to someone who does not believe in the existence of that power.

Class equality or environmentalism can convince people of its worthiness through logic and reason. Religion is the opposite of logic and reason.

I must have missed that part. In general the teachings of the Bible are that the things of sin will punish you not God. He is not mad at us nor running around punishing people . Sin is the culprit and the cause.

Yeah, environmentalism.:eek:

[Turenne]

I really can't think of anything more depressing then teenagers that willingly go to church.

[lord tammerlain]

I've seen religion make changes in me and in others which makes them better citizens of our nation and more apt to help others in need.

Which is why I dont mind religion.

It helps some people be better individuals.

But for some people dont need religion to be better individuals.

Neither should be targetted for their religion or lack thereof

[Atticus]

No, it’s totally different. That an object is shared as a focus of criticism doesn’t make the criticisms equivalent. In fact, they have virtually nothing in common.

Chomsky hates them because they disseminate propaganda in favor of power; he also dislikes concentrations of power generally. But when it comes to the content of pop culture, he has a libertarian view of it.

That is, Chomsky focuses on institutional factors that restrict human freedom.

Luce focuses on the freedom itself as the enemy. Obviously, as a successful businessman (his business being getting paid vast sums of money from the parents of these teens), he absolutely supports concentrations of power and wealth. He also (openly, I add) advocates for indoctrination and obedience to God’s will…that is, obedience to Luce’s version of what God’s will might be.

The two complaints have almost literally nothing to do with each other. Despite their shared subject, they are practically opposite. And I don’t mean left vs right; I mean their complaints are not even in the same world.

Look at it another way: Chomsky rails against the media conglomerations. He would continue to do so, and based on the exact same principles, if they were totally Christianized, or utterly pagan. Because that’s all beside the point.

Luce, on the other hand, would adore popular culture so long as the CONTENT was pleasing to him.Let me make my case for how they are connected.

Chomsky's objections to corporations and corporate culture is that once business rises to the corporate level, the human element--the one that involves ethics and concern for one's fellows--is overpowered by single motivation of profit (i.e., the love of money). People who are perfectly ethical in their private lives go to work as corporate hacks and produce and market products they would never want in their own lives, they lay off people they might otherwise care about and sacrifice for, they pollute an environment they might otherwise husband wisely, they advertise products they know people don't need in ways that make those products seem essential. They are driven to these unethical behaviors by the nature of the organization they work for (and the system of organizations into which it fits).

The central concerns expressed by the organizations highlighted in the OP are very closely related, intimately so. The same poisonous corporate motivations that cause all the problems mentioned above cause them to encourage a culture of cupidity so they can sell it to us. Sex sells, chastity doesn't. Conspicuous consumption is the order of the day. We admire status symbols people can buy--and the corporate culture and corporate media is there to sell them to us. There is very little profit in virtue.

You say that Luce wouldn't object to the corporate culture if it sold the things he likes, but it COULDN'T POSSIBLY do that. Corporate culture can't be "Christianized." It is entirely at odds with Christian goals.

Saying that Chomsky's objections and Christian objections to capitalism are in two different worlds ignores the central tenets of the Christian message. You can't love your neighbor if your first goal is to sell him whatever you can fool him into buying. You can't love God if your primary love is money. The Bible calls the love of money "the root of all evil" and says a man cannot serve two masters, God and "mammon." While Chomsky's message is secular, his central criticism is not incompatible with Christ's.

[Atticus]

Even so, so what? Did I say they couldn't do that? No, but your first comment here was that they SHOULDN'T do that.I think you're reading something into my comments that isn't there. If you go back, my point was that these people can't complain if we criticize them, and I said that much of their comments would fall on deaf ears. I never said they were only trying to reach out to nonChristians.But the rallies were talking about are not aimed at non-Christians primarily. They are about what was once called "consciousness raising" among those who already believe. True, they are public and they want non-believers to see what they're doing, but they are not making altar calls to attract non-believers. They are pressing an important additional message to those who are already sold on the first, more central one. An analogy might be if PETA tried to convince dog and cat lovers not to eat the meat of other animals based on their love for a few. These rallies are about widening the actions of those who already believe in Christ. No, they aren't hidden, but the wider audience that might see what they're doing are not their primary audience--which is what you implied.
Because these are religious values only, not shared by people not of that faith. One of their "values" is that homosexuality is a sin. Why? Because they think their god says it is. That's not a value any more than "don't eat pork" is a value. Just because a religious person believes something strongly doesn't make it a "value."To me, this is a red herring--not because it isn't accurate but because its not particularly important to this subject. I disagree with many of my brothers and sisters on this subject, but there is so much more to agree upon....to bring this up every time the subject of Christianity is broached is a smelly distraction and (it seems to me) an illegitimate debating tactic. It's very much like those people who bring up Monica Lewinsky every time someone mentions Clinton. The man had eight years in office and accomplished a great deal--Lewinsky was a part of those eight years, but those who insist on concentrating on her just want to distract from any other issue a Clinton supporter might bring up. It's the same when non-Chrisitians bring up opposition to gays as if that one issue is the central driving tenet of Christian religion--it's not. It's a tiny, tiny issue in comparison to everything else.

[Groucho]

It's the same when non-Chrisitians bring up opposition to gays as if that one issue is the central driving tenet of Christian religion--it's not. It's a tiny, tiny issue in comparison to everything else.

But the logic behind it is the same as the logic behind a lot of religious beliefs, isn't it? "This is a sin because God says so" doesn't really carry a lot of weight among those who don't believe in God.

[ptac4x4]

Class equality or environmentalism can convince people of its worthiness through logic and reason. Religion is the opposite of logic and reason.

Hence the word "faith". Any Religion is based on faith. And for some, faith in a religion provides guidance on how they act and should treat other people.
I do not quite agree that religion is the opposite of reason. By definition reason is the basis or motive for an action, decision or conviction.

Faith def.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Reason def.

1. The basis or motive for an action, decision, or conviction. See Usage Notes at because, why.
2. A declaration made to explain or justify action, decision, or conviction: inquired about her reason for leaving.
3. An underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence

[Atticus]

But the logic behind it is the same as the logic behind a lot of religious beliefs, isn't it? "This is a sin because God says so" doesn't really carry a lot of weight among those who don't believe in God.I think you're looking at things in too simplistic a view. There are lots of threads about homosexuality and biblical religion in the archives. If things were this simple, there would be no arguments about it.

And again, you're missing my point to you--which is that the rallies in the OP are aimed primarily at those who DO believe in God. It should be easy enough for the rest of you to ignore them. :flowers:

[serenity]

A really good argument, Atticus, and I assure you I took notice. I still think you’re wrong, but not totally wrong (as I did previous). Let’s see if I can rebut your excellent points. I’m not completely confident:

Let me make my case for how they are connected.

Chomsky's objections to corporations and corporate culture is that once business rises to the corporate level, the human element--the one that involves ethics and concern for one's fellows--is overpowered by single motivation of profit (i.e., the love of money). People who are perfectly ethical in their private lives go to work as corporate hacks and produce and market products they would never want in their own lives, they lay off people they might otherwise care about and sacrifice for, they pollute an environment they might otherwise husband wisely, they advertise products they know people don't need in ways that make those products seem essential. They are driven to these unethical behaviors by the nature of the organization they work for (and the system of organizations into which it fits).

My understanding is that this is exactly his view, up to and including remarks he has made about the normal human decency that corporate folks have, and that is often at odds with the institutional (and even legal) structures.

The central concerns expressed by the organizations highlighted in the OP are very closely related, intimately so. The same poisonous corporate motivations that cause all the problems mentioned above cause them to encourage a culture of cupidity so they can sell it to us. Sex sells, chastity doesn't. Conspicuous consumption is the order of the day. We admire status symbols people can buy--and the corporate culture and corporate media is there to sell them to us. There is very little profit in virtue.

Again this is true, but here is where our views begin to veer off a bit. If you’ll humor me for a minute:

OK, Luce is not a seventeenth century witch-hunting puritan. He is very much a product of 21st century Evangelical conservatism, which has a profoundly antipathetic (and profoundly American) view of popular culture which I think is so selective that it approaches utter falsity. I’ll allow that I too find that focus on prurience, specifically the sexualization of youth, as disturbing.

But this is not new…on the contrary, it’s regressive, it’s ancient. (Or, not quite: it marries regressive ideas of youth sexuality, especially female, with a pseudo-feminist “girl power” idea of overt sexuality which I find a little dubious, personally. Add this to profitability, the power of sexual voyeurism, and the relatively recently discovered buying power of teens, and voila! Teenage wasteland.)

More to the point, and why I referred to timeframes regarding men like Luce, is that they are implicitly (often explicitly) pining for an “innocent America”, often of ca. fifty years ago, that didn’t actually exist.

Consider: aside from the sexualization, which has sort of unhappily married old and new (and to some degree, left and right), we are in several important ways more civilized, more mature, and more nuanced in our understanding, and in our popular culture, than we were fifty years ago. Ethnic groups from stereotyped blacks to Tonto (the “good” Indian) were everywhere; men were the decision makers; authority figures were benign; enemies were enemies and America was the Good Guy.

I honestly don’t find this very appealing. Well, to be honest, occasionally, but not usually.

Now, to speculate (though I’d bet money on it) Luce would much prefer this stuff, even to what is superior now. (Racism aside…I don’t accuse him of that.) His return to “values” is not unambiguously any such thing. The entire issue seems to be sex (violence maybe, but as a definite afterthought). Maybe it’s the general vapidity, but it seems to me that sex is central.

But popular culture is complex. Through the constant barrage, it’s difficult not get dismayed by the prurience, the trivialism, the utter banality and stupidity. On the other hand, while it takes some sifting and sorting, popular culture has in many ways improved…its quality is higher, for one thing (“The Sopranos”, “The Wire,” Six Feet Under,” “Big Love”: these are all vastly superior to anything—anything—produced during the so-called “Golden Age of television.” Also, advertising, though no more objectionable than it is now, was just as stupid and insulting to our intelligence); and, like I say, in some ways pop culture is morally superior to what it was, not inferior. I would agree with Luce that the mind-numbing, oversexed, proudly materialistic stuff is often offensive, and might even be quite bad for us on a psychic level. Just as I personally think that a lot of pornography is bad for us, even beyond the reasons that religious conservatives and feminists claim.

But it’s not a matter of total rot, complete badness. I certainly can’t see some “return to values” as a positive development either. I guess my question is this: what, exactly, does Luce think acceptable, and what isn’t? I doubt he’s thought it out, but instead worked on impression and conventional Evangelical thought on these matters. This is important, because he is influencing teens, thousands and thousands of other people’s children.

As for Luce’s complaints, I don’t see any objection to the institutional structures themselves; I see no reason to think that Luce has considered any of this. You give him the credit of being as thoughtful and insightful as yourself; a generous quality you have, but that doesn’t make it accurate.

[serenity]

You say that Luce wouldn't object to the corporate culture if it sold the things he likes, but it COULDN'T POSSIBLY do that. Corporate culture can't be "Christianized." It is entirely at odds with Christian goals.


Personally, I agree with you. But I think many Christians are bound and determined to try. I don’t mean this as anything sinister, some sort of religious takeover. I just mean they object to what they see as a secular, empty value system and wish to influence it in ways they see as beneficial. Probably they will fail, beyond their current niche market. Their concerns are often understandable, but I’m not sure they’ve really, really thought them out in an expansive way.


Saying that Chomsky's objections and Christian objections to capitalism are in two different worlds ignores the central tenets of the Christian message. You can't love your neighbor if your first goal is to sell him whatever you can fool him into buying. You can't love God if your primary love is money. The Bible calls the love of money "the root of all evil" and says a man cannot serve two masters, God and "mammon." While Chomsky's message is secular, his central criticism is not incompatible with Christ's.

I agree (and his atheism aside, he sure mentions Jesus and the Gospels a lot…he seems a bit perversely hostile to something he appears to admire, I think). And a few of my snide remarks aside, I’m not so sure that I’m suspicious of the motives of men like Luce…morally, I mean. Not at bottom, not fundamentally. I just sincerely doubt that Luce has thought this through the way you have. For various reasons, contemporary conservative Christians seem quite supportive of, even defensive about, aspects of our culture that are in some ways quite oppositional to their values. And a fixity on teen sexuality probably doesn’t help much, even as we might have some appreciation for such concerns.

I apologize for my convolutions here; you gave me a lot to think about.

[MikeD4o7]

So you think that a values system based on a transitory emotion (one surely perceived somewhat differently by each person) is more legitimate than one based on a scripture? Hmmmm...

Iwould also suggest that while reason gets us a great many good places, something masquerading as reason gets us everywhere else--and we often find we can't tell the difference until much later.

If reason led us invariably to the ideal good, reasonable people would never disagree--and we clearly see that eventuality contradicted here in these forums everyday.

I'm not really sure if I would refer to empathy as a transitory emotion. The ability to perceive what it's like to be in a situation that you're not actually in (ie, somebody else's position) is something that seems to come inherently with intelligence itself, as I think it can be successfully argued that other animals with a relatively high level of intelligence show at least some signs of empathy as well.

...and yes, I would say it's definitely more legitimate than scripture.


As to your point that something masquerading as reason can lead us down some very bad paths, I think that only strengthens my point. With scripture, there's not even a method for finding truth, you're either lucky enough to happen to believe the right scriptures I guess, or you're one of the unlucky ones who follows some scripture that's completely off. At least with reason, when it's wrong, there's a method for correcting it. If we're always challenging the premises that our notions of truth are built upon, and applying reason to them, then we'll always be getting closer to the truth. Are we always going to be limited by our knowledge? Absolutely. Just because religions may falsely promise a perfect utopia, that doesn't make reason any less legitimate just because it can't promise the same thing.

The idea that reasonable people would never disagree just doesn't make sense. To give you an example... I know pretty much nothing about the finer points of economics. I've seen you talk about economic subjects on other threads and you seem pretty knowledgeable on the subject. If somebody makes a general statement about something have to do with that subject, it's very possible that I may draw a different conclusion than you do about it, even if we both use reason to the best of our ability. It may be that you have years of education that help you understand a great number of nuances that I simply don't have any idea even exist, and that could completely change the outcome of our respective conclusions.

Another example could be the one I gave in the previous post. Imagine a situation where you're being forced to cruelly torture one person to death, who happens to be a loved one of yours. and if you don't torture your loved one, then 10 random strangers are going to be executed. You could reason that 10 lives outweigh one, or you could reason that such atrocious means don't warrant any end, and that if those 10 people are executed by another, the blood isn't technically on your hands since you cannot perform the unspeakable on a loved one of yours.
.... In a situation like this, will reason ever produce a perfectly cut answer? No... but is that truly because reason is lacking, or is it because some thing legitimately are gray, and reason could be properly applied, and still reach more than one result? Does God provide an answer for that kind of question? If scripture did have a clear "you must do this" guide for that very situation, would the religious even be comfortable with it? I doubt it.

[Ethos]

And again, you're missing my point to you--which is that the rallies in the OP are aimed primarily at those who DO believe in God. It should be easy enough for the rest of you to ignore them. :flowers:

If these rallies took place in a vacuum, perhaps the rest of us could ignore them. Unfortunately it seems that many who would fight against "cultural degradation" for their own people would also do so on our behalf, and this is where the problem begins.

Ethos

[Atticus]

If these rallies took place in a vacuum, perhaps the rest of us could ignore them. Unfortunately it seems that many who would fight against "cultural degradation" for their own people would also do so on our behalf, and this is where the problem begins.

EthosNot really. These rallies are aimed at getting teenagers to make different decisions in their own lives. They are not political in nature. They pray and they listen and they make commitments about their own consumption. Unless you've suddenly changed your mind about the efficacy of prayer, there's little here for you to worry about.

[Atticus]

Serenity--you may be right that I'm reading into these rallies too much thoughtfulness, but I think you are also reading in. We can talk a long and interesting time about the comparative banality of television, then and now. But teenagers today also have many other choices and access to all kind of media that would never make it to broadcast television. "Girls Gone Wild" is an example. MTV's "Spring Break." I'm no prude (believe me), but available media has an effect on the culture of teenagers, who are constantly looking to outside sources to discover what's "normal."

We also see parents taking very young children to movies that are inappropriate for them--I heard an early school aged child murmuring and even crying out in anticipation of some of the horrific violence in Apocalypto when I saw it recently. To me, that's child abuse, but no one stopped them.

And, of course these things run in cycles. In the twenties, Cole Porter wrote "Anything Goes" to reflect the gasping conservatives' reaction in his own time. My own students today are shocked the the poetry of John Wilmont, 3rd Earl of Shaftsbury in my Eighteenth Century Brit Lit course. The laughable fops in Moliere's Tartuffe demonstrate the stiff-necked conservatism of 17th century France. The list goes on.

What's different today is the wide availability of media and the profit in making it. Any enterprising teen a DVD player can provide his/her friends with whatever is available. That's why I'm in favor of teens making choices about how they spend their time and their money. Living in resistance to popular culture is a good thing because it involves conscious, deliberate choice--something too few people do. Whether those deliberate choices are based on a belief in God or a care for animals or a concern for the environment is less important, it seems to me, than the making of deliberate choices.

Something tells me that deliberate choices are a habit--one that serves us well whether Christian or Chomskyite.

[Ethos]

Not really. These rallies are aimed at getting teenagers to make different decisions in their own lives. They are not political in nature. They pray and they listen and they make commitments about their own consumption. Unless you've suddenly changed your mind about the efficacy of prayer, there's little here for you to worry about.

I'm not convinced. Commenting that these children are in a "battle" against their moral "enemies" doesn't do much to support the idea that all they are being encouraged to do is "pray". You don't gather large groups of "revolutionaries" together so they can mind their own business.

Rather than simply ignoring the commercial industries they object to, they seek to obstruct access to these industries to others who do not share their values.

Ethos

[Atticus]

I'm not convinced. Commenting that these children are in a "battle" against their moral "enemies" doesn't do much to support the idea that all they are being encouraged to do is "pray". You don't gather large groups of "revolutionaries" together so they can mind their own business.

Rather than simply ignoring the commercial industries they object to, they seek to obstruct access to these industries to others who do not share their values.

EthosHow? Seriously, in a nation with a First Amendment, how are they going to manage that?

We have a ratings system for movies--do you object?

We have warning labels on some record albums--do you object?

We have a V-Chip system for television shows--do you object?

In a time with DVDs, VHS, satellite, cable, streaming internet video--a time when PARENTS can't control what their older children see and hear, how will the children themselves manage it? (Other than for themselves, of course.)

How does someone "obstruct access" to something someone wants to sell them?

[Soren]

I'm not convinced. Commenting that these children are in a "battle" against their moral "enemies" doesn't do much to support the idea that all they are being encouraged to do is "pray". You don't gather large groups of "revolutionaries" together so they can mind their own business.

Rather than simply ignoring the commercial industries they object to, they seek to obstruct access to these industries to others who do not share their values.

EthosAs a teenager I went to plenty of church meetings where I was urged to avoid such trash, but to call that sort of sentiment revolutionary is just plain absurd.

[Ethos]

As a teenager I went to plenty of church meetings where I was urged to avoid such trash, but to call that sort of sentiment revolutionary is just plain absurd.

I'm quoting from the actual article itself, not simply making up hyperbole.

[Ethos]

How? Seriously, in a nation with a First Amendment, how are they going to manage that?

We have a ratings system for movies--do you object?

We have warning labels on some record albums--do you object?

We have a V-Chip system for television shows--do you object?

In a time with DVDs, VHS, satellite, cable, streaming internet video--a time when PARENTS can't control what their older children see and hear, how will the children themselves manage it? (Other than for themselves, of course.)

How does someone "obstruct access" to something someone wants to sell them?

I don't believe we need to get into a disagreement about whether or not constitutional amendments are a guarantee against abuse. The first amendment guarantees only that we have the right to fight challenges to its meaning, not that we win all such challenges.

I do not object to labels or the V-chip, which do nothing to alter the materials they contend with. Ratings I do feel are troublesome since movie studios (and game makers, music studios, etc) tend to either enforce censorship in movies they produce to protect profits, or refuse to accept a project that might be objected to.

These types of rallies support abolishment of the content the labels reside upon, which is the more severe threat, as well as contributing to the overall censorship of media by encouraging the types of overt ratings control I mentioned above.

These actions do not happen in a vacuum, you realize. When enough teens get together in this kind of public display, the media takes notice. Once reported on CNN and Fox News enough times, with enough supporting interviews of moral pundits, the industries react by restricting production of content being railed against. The segment of the public (the secular culturists) that purchase this content are negatively affected as a result.

If such rallies are held privately and in smaller groups, the result does not interfere with the lives of others.

Ethos

[Soren]

I don't believe we need to get into a disagreement about whether or not constitutional amendments are a guarantee against abuse. The first amendment guarantees only that we have the right to fight challenges to its meaning, not that we win all such challenges.

I do not object to labels or the V-chip, which do nothing to alter the materials they contend with. Ratings I do feel are troublesome since movie studios (and game makers, music studios, etc) tend to either enforce censorship in movies they produce to protect profits, or refuse to accept a project that might be objected to.

These types of rallies support abolishment of the content the labels reside upon, which is the more severe threat, as well as contributing to the overall censorship of media by encouraging the types of overt ratings control I mentioned above.

These actions do not happen in a vacuum, you realize. When enough teens get together in this kind of public display, the media takes notice. Once reported on CNN and Fox News enough times, with enough supporting interviews of moral pundits, the industries react by restricting production of content being railed against. The segment of the public (the secular culturists) that purchase this content are negatively affected as a result.

If such rallies are held privately and in smaller groups, the result does not interfere with the lives of others.

EthosSo what exactly denies their rights to influence the selling practices of the companies of their choice? If others don't like this group's influence they can do the same thing.

[Ethos]

So what exactly denies their rights to influence the selling practices of the companies of their choice? If others don't like this group's influence they can do the same thing.

Nothing "denies" their right to do it, I am simply objecting to the imposition of their morality on others, which is what this issue boils down to.

I have nothing against a person refusing to buy a CD because they feel the lyrics are vulgar. The problem comes when they don't want others to buy it either.

Ethos

[Atticus]

The problem comes when they don't want others to buy it either.Right--except that they don't have anything like the power to make that happen. Let's remember that at the worst, in this country one gets the justice one pays for. And, as Chomsky is the first to tell us, the companies that make media have tons of it, and there are only a few of them. The same conglomeration of media interests that Chomsky believes control control American politics will work to protect its own interests in this area.

It's simply ridiculous to suggest that few thousand (or 10,000 or even a 100,000) teenagers at a rally can effectively muzzle a multi-billion-dollar industry. It would take a massive movement of consumers, each voluntarily refusing to buy a product to make it unprofitable to produce. You can't seriously suggest that these kids are a threat. Even if you throw in Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family and a bunch of churches, you still don't have the wherewithal to "obstruct an industry" that has literally billions of dollars to defend itself.

They can't "impose their morality on others." All they can do is resist a culture that seeks to impose its morality on them. That's the much more likely threat.

[GI Joe]

Which is why I dont mind religion.

It helps some people be better individuals.

But for some people dont need religion to be better individuals.

Neither should be targetted for their religion or lack thereof


Well said, I am not religious nor do I believe in god but I dont have a problem with religion as long as its not forced on me. AS you said it does help some people be a better person.

[GI Joe]

Even so, so what? Did I say they couldn't do that?





Because these are religious values only, not shared by people not of that faith. One of their "values" is that homosexuality is a sin. Why? Because they think their god says it is. That's not a value any more than "don't eat pork" is a value. Just because a religious person believes something strongly doesn't make it a "value."


I am not religious but I think Homosexuality is wrong, some values are shared

[Soren]

They can't "impose their morality on others." All they can do is resist a culture that seeks to impose its morality on them. That's the much more likely threat.In our current environment this seems far more likely to occur. I know far more than I care too about an ocean of stars of music and cinema whose work strikes me as something far less than "virtuous, lovely ... or praiseworthy". Much of what I find objectionable is material I don't choose and wouldn't choose to consume if offered the choice, but I am around it as a simple consequence of living in our culture.

[MikeD4o7]

I am not religious but I think Homosexuality is wrong, some values are shared

I don't have any poll numbers to back this up, but let me know if you disagree with this and I'll try to find some evidence... I think that you probably represent a pretty small minority. I think the vast majority of people who oppose homosexuality do so for religious reasons.

[Ethos]

I am not religious but I think Homosexuality is wrong, some values are shared

Incorrect. You think male homosexuality is wrong.

Let us be honest about our hypocrisies.

Ethos

[Ethos]

It's simply ridiculous to suggest that few thousand (or 10,000 or even a 100,000) teenagers at a rally can effectively muzzle a multi-billion-dollar industry. It would take a massive movement of consumers, each voluntarily refusing to buy a product to make it unprofitable to produce. You can't seriously suggest that these kids are a threat. Even if you throw in Pat Robertson, Focus on the Family and a bunch of churches, you still don't have the wherewithal to "obstruct an industry" that has literally billions of dollars to defend itself.

You must not be reading what I'm posting. 10,000 teenagers at a rally can indeed muzzle multi-billion dollar industries. They have done so in the past, and will do so in the future. The rally itself sparks media attention, which magnifies the message through news segment after segment, and the media content is altered as a result.

Wal-Mart refuses to carry CD's with bad lyrics. They drop magazines such as "Maxim" because a few thousand parents (through advocacy groups) complain.

The movie industry refuses to produce films that would carry an "R" rating because profits suffer. Video stores actively censor content to portray a "family" image.

Television stations are fearful of airing a broadcast which might contain even mild profanity. Commercials with "controversial" messages are refused.

What you are not acknowledging is that in today's media environment, it takes very few people to create censorship. And when one person - or 10,000 - seek to edit content for all, this is a moral imposition.

Resistance can be achieved in private. This is not being done in private.

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

I know at least two major networks refused to air the Trojan condom commercial that portrayed men who don't use protection as pigs (literally), and encouraged them to "evolve" (carry a condom). And then there's the push by "family values" groups for things such as abstinence only sex education in public schools. This is not simply moral imposition, it's dangerous in very real ways.

[Atticus]

You must not be reading what I'm posting. 10,000 teenagers at a rally can indeed muzzle multi-billion dollar industries. They have done so in the past, and will do so in the future. The rally itself sparks media attention, which magnifies the message through news segment after segment, and the media content is altered as a result.

Wal-Mart refuses to carry CD's with bad lyrics. They drop magazines such as "Maxim" because a few thousand parents (through advocacy groups) complain.And yet you can buy them in other places who do want the profits from those items. If there's money in it an it's legal, someone will sell it to you. Better yet, they'll sell it at an undiscounted price. Ain't capitalism grand.
The movie industry refuses to produce films that would carry an "R" rating because profits suffer.Since when did that happen? The movie makers sometimes make two versions of a film--a worse version that earns them the PG-13 rating (because a G rating is what really kills profits) and the less severe version they actually release. Profits don't suffer from "R" rated films.
Video stores actively censor content to portray a "family" image.How terrible! People with children rent more movies because babysitters are expensive. They have to be able to take their kids into the stores.
Television stations are fearful of airing a broadcast which might contain even mild profanity. Commercials with "controversial" messages are refused.What is mild? Broadcast television is a very large agora. It has to appeal to a wide variety of viewers, so some discretion is advisable. Besides, there's plenty of other stuff easily available to you--why does it need to be where kids can see and hear it? I'm afraid to let my small children near the television during some times of the day for fear they'll see a WWF commercial where large men appear to be beating the crap out of each other, or an ad for a violent movie or TV show that will be shown after they go to bed. If you don't have kids, you probably don't get this concern--I didn't.
What you are not acknowledging is that in today's media environment, it takes very few people to create censorship. And when one person - or 10,000 - seek to edit content for all, this is a moral imposition. But they can't prevent you from buying what you want and seeing what you want. There are simply too many choices of transmission and content. You're complaint isn't that you can't find something you want--it's that you can't find something you want ANYWHERE at ANYTIME.
Resistance can be achieved in private. Not really. Not without refusing to turn on the television. Not without severely restricting your kids' choice of friends.

But the rallies we're talking about aren't responsible for any of the terrible restrictions you've just mentioned, which were the result of adult organizations and political activity by parents. These rallies are for kids, to encourage them to exercise the very private resistance you say you don't mind. And yet, it appears, you do mind.

[Atticus]

I know at least two major networks refused to air the Trojan condom commercial that portrayed men who don't use protection as pigs (literally), and encouraged them to "evolve" (carry a condom). Wow. Will civilization survive?And then there's the push by "family values" groups for things such as abstinence only sex education in public schools. This is not simply moral imposition, it's dangerous in very real ways.How is this issue related to what we're talking about here?

[Lumpen Prole]

Wow. Will civilization survive?How is this issue related to what we're talking about here?

The imposition of "morality" on others. Fox and (I believe) MSNBC refused to air the commercial out of fear that people would boycott their channel (hmmm, I wonder what kind of people). The commercial promotes safe sex. I don't think we need to get into why promoting safe sex is important.

How is this issue related to what we're talking about here?

It's a much more striking example of the issue at hand: the imposition of "morality" on others. If you don't want your children to reduce their risk of contracting an STD, getting pregnant in their teenage years, or have knowledge of various birth control methods then fine. But many of these people do in fact push what they feel as right (and is in fact dangerous and ignorant) on others, and in this is particularly striking in instances such as this. And let us not forget the Bush administration's role in promoting abstinence only education. Or is our government not influential either?

[serenity]

"Girls Gone Wild" is an example. MTV's "Spring Break." I'm no prude (believe me), but available media has an effect on the culture of teenagers, who are constantly looking to outside sources to discover what's "normal."

Believe me, I don’t like this stuff either. I’ve got two daughters, 19 and 17.

We also see parents taking very young children to movies that are inappropriate for them--I heard an early school aged child murmuring and even crying out in anticipation of some of the horrific violence in Apocalypto when I saw it recently. To me, that's child abuse, but no one stopped them.


It seems an ill-conceived choice, that’s for sure. That’s a violent movie. I allowed my children to watch R-rated movies at a young age…but I’m talking 14. (Some people would no doubt consider that inappropriate, but there’s a big difference between 14 and some child in elementary school.)



And, of course these things run in cycles My own students today are shocked the the poetry of John Wilmont, 3rd Earl of Shaftsbury in my Eighteenth Century Brit Lit course. The laughable fops in Moliere's Tartuffe demonstrate the stiff-necked conservatism of 17th century France. The list goes on.

You remind me of my ignorance. I’ve read only a bit of stuff from that era, thanks to my girlfriend (she’s a professor of English too)—A little Alexander Pope, and Swift’s Modest Proposal. It’s great though, once you learn to enjoy the amazing sophistication rather than close your mind to it. Are your students responsive?

My lady is teaching a 2nd year “Great Books” course this fall, and she’s tearing her hair out trying to figure out what to include (more accurately, what to leave out).


What's different today is the wide availability of media and the profit in making it. Any enterprising teen a DVD player can provide his/her friends with whatever is available.

Yeah, a real double-edged sword, you’re right.

That's why I'm in favor of teens making choices about how they spend their time and their money. Living in resistance to popular culture is a good thing because it involves conscious, deliberate choice--something too few people do. Whether those deliberate choices are based on a belief in God or a care for animals or a concern for the environment is less important, it seems to me, than the making of deliberate choices.

Something tells me that deliberate choices are a habit--one that serves us well whether Christian or Chomskyite.

This appeals to me, so I can agree happily. And like I said, I don’t have some objection to Luce or his ilk on a fundamental level—I don’t doubt his motives. I imagine he’s a decent man. I just can’t quit e get behind the formulation that I perceive: that this is some battle between liberalism and conservatism. Because I think that’s a misperception (unless I’m the one misperceiving it!). And I would hope that, as a man who is obviously guiding teens to make choices, that he would be sophisticated enough to recognize the less brazen but equally sick perversions inherent to so much “innocent” popular culture as well. You don’t want to encourage teens to drop their “Girls Gone Wild” videos only to endorse something equally (if less obviously) offensive. It’s arguably counter-productive. And this takes thought and insight.

[Ethos]

And yet you can buy them in other places who do want the profits from those items. If there's money in it an it's legal, someone will sell it to you. Better yet, they'll sell it at an undiscounted price. Ain't capitalism grand.

Why should I be forced to travel to increasingly obscure locations to purchase a legal item because a minority of religious conservatives feel my values should reflect their own?


Since when did that happen? The movie makers sometimes make two versions of a film--a worse version that earns them the PG-13 rating (because a G rating is what really kills profits) and the less severe version they actually release. Profits don't suffer from "R" rated films.

Since the MPAA came into existence. Profits do indeed suffer when a film is rated 'R' because no one under 17 can view the film. Perhaps you underestimate the money spent by 13-16 year olds on a weekend outing at the theater. Studios are hesitant to include more provocative scenes in an otherwise PG-13 movie because of the fear of an 'R' rating. Unfortunately this means artistic expression suffers.



How terrible! People with children rent more movies because babysitters are expensive. They have to be able to take their kids into the stores.
What is mild? Broadcast television is a very large agora. It has to appeal to a wide variety of viewers, so some discretion is advisable.

Perhaps you remember the issues with Blockbuster censoring content from 'Titanic'? Trust that I am not talking about pornography, but valid and popular titles that are effectively 'airbrushed' due to public pressures.


But the rallies we're talking about aren't responsible for any of the terrible restrictions you've just mentioned, which were the result of adult organizations and political activity by parents. These rallies are for kids, to encourage them to exercise the very private resistance you say you don't mind. And yet, it appears, you do mind.

The simple fact that the rally has been reported in the media means it is no longer a private function. If you look at the words and the intent of the people structuring these activities, you will understand they are not organizing a purely self-effective campaign, but something that is intended to breech a wider demographic.

It is obvious we're not going to agree, so I expect more back and forth is pointless... plus you have encouraged me to once again partake in broken quotes, a pet peve. Let me just conclude by acknowledging that I can still gain access to the media content of my choice, however the point here isn't what I can or can't do, but what the people involved in these rallies want me to be able to purchase.

If you truly believe it is not their goal to have objectionable materials removed from store shelves - all store shelves - in an effort to improve the overall morality of our culture, then I'm afraid we will never find a basis for agreement on this issue. For my part, I have no objection when a rally is held for the sole benefit of those in attendance. If the same rally is portrayed as a benefit for me, this is where my support ends.

Ethos

[Lumpen Prole]

I want to add that no one is arguing that civilization itself is threatened - and yes, I realize that the use of such hyperbole was for satirical purposes. But such language suggests to me that the severity of moral imposition is what makes an objection justified or not. I am simply saying that imposing your own moral convictions on others (especially when they are derived from religion, and, shockingly, not everyone shares your religion), no matter how significant, is objectionable in principle.

[Atticus]

Why should I be forced to travel to increasingly obscure locations to purchase a legal item because a minority of religious conservatives feel my values should reflect their own?Maybe because it isn't important enough to you to mass your supposed majority to political action in the opposite direction. Surely if a few thousand Maxim opponents can get Walmart to pull it because of a threatened boycott, the group you say is larger can even more effectively influence Walmart by making a counter boycott claim. But apparently it's NOT that important.

Besides, Ethos, this is a big and diverse country we live in. Retailers have to accommodate a wide variety of consumers. Some of them want to buy Maxim. Some others don't want their kids seeing covers with women dressed exclusively in blueberries (sorry, that was actually an Esquire cover, but Maxim is pretty similar). Retailers try to accommodate both.

The reason I don't think you have anything to fear is because of people like me--and there are many of us--who want neither a country where Maxim (or Ms. or Playboy, or Hustler, or "*****" magazine) are banned from all shelves nor a country where they are available at every checkout counter, even the ones were we buy our groceries and therefore carry our children by. See, if it came to the extreme you claim these church leaders want, you really would be in the majority, because my voice would be added to yours. Sorry that you're so extreme that you don't believe you'd have an easy majority in that case. But frankly, the position you're espousing is the more extreme one--you insist that YOUR morality is the one that must be exposed in public, everywhere, all the time.
Since the MPAA came into existence. Profits do indeed suffer when a film is rated 'R' because no one under 17 can view the film. Perhaps you underestimate the money spent by 13-16 year olds on a weekend outing at the theater. Studios are hesitant to include more provocative scenes in an otherwise PG-13 movie because of the fear of an 'R' rating. Unfortunately this means artistic expression suffers. What you aren't admitting is that the inverse is also true--"G" ratings cause films to suffer as well, and so filmmakers PUT IN language, etc., that they don't necessarily need because filmmakers aim every major motion picture at 13-year old boys, who are their primary demographic. This is just one reason that economics interferes with artistic expression, but you'll have to take that up with the film-going public. Again, ain't capitalism wonderful?

BTW, digital video production is in the process of revolutionizing filmmaking, so you need not fear that artistic expression will be suffering much longer--movies are going to be much cheaper to make and market in just a few years, just as music is today.
Perhaps you remember the issues with Blockbuster censoring content from 'Titanic'? Trust that I am not talking about pornography, but valid and popular titles that are effectively 'airbrushed' due to public pressures.Hadn't heard about this one. Strange thing about offering artistic expression for the general public tastes--the philistines rarely understand. But that's been an issue ever since there has been art--ask Michaelangelo about patrons. :rolleyes: It doesn't take a rating system or even a fully-developed capitalist system to see conflicts between monied interests and the artists they support.
The simple fact that the rally has been reported in the media means it is no longer a private function. If you look at the words and the intent of the people structuring these activities, you will understand they are not organizing a purely self-effective campaign, but something that is intended to breech a wider demographic.Again, so what? The question is whether they can succeed in bringing about the fascistic strawman you're building. They can't.
It is obvious we're not going to agree, so I expect more back and forth is pointless... plus you have encouraged me to once again partake in broken quotes, a pet peve. Let me just conclude by acknowledging that I can still gain access to the media content of my choice, however the point here isn't what I can or can't do, but what the people involved in these rallies want me to be able to purchase. Just because they may (and MAY is the operative word) want to restrict your power to purchase what you like, they're ability to do so is strictly limited. You're overreacting.
If you truly believe it is not their goal to have objectionable materials removed from store shelves - all store shelves - in an effort to improve the overall morality of our culture, then I'm afraid we will never find a basis for agreement on this issue. For my part, I have no objection when a rally is held for the sole benefit of those in attendance. If the same rally is portrayed as a benefit for me, this is where my support ends.

EthosNo one needs nor has asked for your "support." I think you're guilty of exactly the fault you point out so vociferously in others. You believe so strongly in the rightness of your own values that you insist that they be the rule everywhere at every time. It's a large country we have to share. I don't think your extreme view here is any less dangerous than your opposite numbers.

[Atticus]

The imposition of "morality" on others. Fox and (I believe) MSNBC refused to air the commercial out of fear that people would boycott their channel (hmmm, I wonder what kind of people). The commercial promotes safe sex. I don't think we need to get into why promoting safe sex is important. Actually, no, it's primary goal is to promote a product, one that has a limited application. And it does so in a way that makes sex fashionable. Putting it on general TV puts it in front of EVERYONE. Condom manufacturers do not lack for venues by which they can more specifically target their advertising.
It's a much more striking example of the issue at hand: the imposition of "morality" on others. If you don't want your children to reduce their risk of contracting an STD, getting pregnant in their teenage years, or have knowledge of various birth control methods then fine. But many of these people do in fact push what they feel as right (and is in fact dangerous and ignorant) on others, and in this is particularly striking in instances such as this. And let us not forget the Bush administration's role in promoting abstinence only education. Or is our government not influential either?You stretch this question to its breaking point. The issue you're talking about is a public policy debate involving the use of government funds--one that has been discussed on at least a half-dozen other threads in the last twelve months. THIS thread is about teenagers encouraged to limit their own exposure to popular culture. Pretending these two issues are closely related shift ground and tries to force those who would defend one to defend the other--and make us look like hypocrites if we don't. It's a fallacious equivocation.

[Ethos]

No one needs nor has asked for your "support." I think you're guilty of exactly the fault you point out so vociferously in others. You believe so strongly in the rightness of your own values that you insist that they be the rule everywhere at every time. It's a large country we have to share. I don't think your extreme view here is any less dangerous than your opposite numbers.

I accept it is possible, though I don't see it that way (obviously). It occurs to me at this late point that you may have misunderstood my motives. I am less concerned with an actual cessation of content (which would be impossible in a capitalistic system, as you rightly point out). As LP has put it, the issue is more on principle - although I do maintain that censorship can and does occur on a limited to medium basis.

A more simplistic approach may be called for. In this case there are two positions.

A person can say they will not support a material or industry without interfering with the production of that content. The same person can also say that you should not have access to the material or industry. In this case the interference is inherent to their position.

These types of high-profile public exercises are designed to perform the latter function. Obviously I am going to object when someone else takes it upon themselves to decide what it is I should be able to purchase (even if that happens to be something as inane as an issue of Maxim at the local Wal-Mart). This is an imposition of morality. These people seek to limit my choices as a member of free society.

Ethos

[GI Joe]

Incorrect. You think male homosexuality is wrong.

Let us be honest about our hypocrisies.

Ethos


No both are wrong but one doesnt disgust me. Its just like I know partying and getting hammered is wrong but I like to do it anyway

[Lumpen Prole]

Actually, no, it's primary goal is to promote a product, one that has a limited application. And it does so in a way that makes sex fashionable. Putting it on general TV puts it in front of EVERYONE. Condom manufacturers do not lack for venues by which they can more specifically target their advertising.

You stretch this question to its breaking point. The issue you're talking about is a public policy debate involving the use of government funds--one that has been discussed on at least a half-dozen other threads in the last twelve months. THIS thread is about teenagers encouraged to limit their own exposure to popular culture. Pretending these two issues are closely related shift ground and tries to force those who would defend one to defend the other--and make us look like hypocrites if we don't. It's a fallacious equivocation.

You have made some curious comments here. Correct me if I am wrong, but you have stated an objection to such condom commercials on national television because it imposes something on everyone: that (safe) sex is fashionable, or perhaps conversely that unprotected sex is not. If I grant you this point, a contradiction emerges. You're objecting to such a statement because it imposes one viewpoint to anyone who happens to be watching, whether they agree with it or not. This is precisely the reasoning for my and others objections to the moral imposition of the "family values" folk on people who do not share their viewpoints. If I have misconstrued your position in relating these two things (I am allowed to relate things to one another, right?) please correct me, but if my statements are accurate I an interested in how you would resolve this apparent contradiction.

You say I am stretching the question to its breaking point, but I was simply citing other examples which I feel are all related to one another in principle. It would certainly make for an interesting philosophical discussion as to whether or not we should evaluate things based on underlying principles or on a case-by-case basis, but I feel that would be a digression to another topic completely, something you would obviously object to. ;)

[Lumpen Prole]

No both are wrong but one doesnt disgust me. Its just like I know partying and getting hammered is wrong but I like to do it anyway

So you either support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as well as one which bans going to parties, or you support neither?

[Ethos]

No both are wrong but one doesnt disgust me. Its just like I know partying and getting hammered is wrong but I like to do it anyway

It is wrong for two men to have sex, but it is okay (if still wrong) for two women... because you like it?

Your logic escapes me.

Ethos

[Groucho]

It is wrong for two men to have sex, but it is okay (if still wrong) for two women... because you like it?

Your logic escapes me.

Ethos

There's your problem right there, Ethos -- you used the word "logic" to describe it.

[Atticus]

You have made some curious comments here. Correct me if I am wrong, but you have stated an objection to such condom commercials on national television because it imposes something on everyone: that (safe) sex is fashionable, or perhaps conversely that unprotected sex is not. Actually, I must not have made myself clear. I don't object to safe sex, nor to efforts to make safe sex fashionable among people who have sex. My objection is that it appears in a medium available not only to the sexually active but those those who are not ready for sex. The transition from sexually naive to sexually experienced is an important and personal one. I'd rather not have the media or advertisers vamping children. As I said, condom manufacturers have no shortage of outlets to reach their potential customers without confronting pre-teens and early teenagers (and even late teenagers, depending on an individual family's values) with sexual products. That's my primary objection.

BTW, taking something serenity said as a springboard, I have no objection whatever to his letting his 14-year old daughter watch "R" rated films, first because that is his decision (he's her guardian) but also because he knows his daughter better than any of us non-family members could. Just when to introduce the notion of the condom to a teenager is a decision parents should make--others ought to back off.

I'm also not crazy in general about advertising that uses the "bandwagon" fallacy--whether it's selling mouthwash, deodorant, automobiles or remote controlled cars. The "gotta-have-it-or-you'll-be-a-social-pariah" sales technique is one I find particularly abhorrent. In fact, Americans (in comparison to Europeans, for example) are obsessed with their breath and their body odor, largely because of rash of advertising of this kind about the time I hit puberty (late 1970's).

My comment on "stretching the question to its breaking point" was about another issue--the idea of encouraging abstinence via federal policy. That issue has been discussed at length in many other threads and is pretty much unrelated to this one.

[Lumpen Prole]

My comment on "stretching the question to its breaking point" was about another issue--the idea of encouraging abstinence via federal policy. That issue has been discussed at length in many other threads and is pretty much unrelated to this one.

Yes, and who encourages such policies? Who votes for candidates based on whether or not they will pursue such policies? The same moral crusaders who engage in activities like those described in the original post of this thread. Sometimes these moral crusades go nowhere and are largely ignored, and sometimes they have much more far-reaching consequences.

[Atticus]

Yes, and who encourages such policies? Who votes for candidates based on whether or not they will pursue such policies? The same moral crusaders who engage in activities like those described in the original post of this thread. Sometimes these moral crusades go nowhere and are largely ignored, and sometimes they have much more far-reaching consequences.Just because a particular event is sponsored by "the same moral crusaders" does not mean that ALL even-tenuously related events are fair game in the the same thread. Really, wouldn't you object to such an undifferentiated and mindless generalization if it were applied to a different category to which you sometimes--but not always--subscribe? This reminds me of some of the sloppier black-and-white thinking we see too often from some conservatives in this forum.

[Dangerrmouse]

Do you contend that it is not the "respectable" end of the spectrum upon which these people exist which gives them traction, and a cover of normality?

[Lumpen Prole]

You are, of course, welcome to argue that these things are not related by the same principle previously discussed. This would be preferable to calling my comments "mindless," especially when implying that such "sloppy" thinking is characteristic of certain people with conservative politics. I would especially appreciate this type of forum conduct given not only that you're a staff member who respects and upholds the forum rules, but one who argued vehemently against the use of words that can possibly be interpreted as offensive. :angel:

[Atticus]

Do you contend that it is not the "respectable" end of the spectrum upon which these people exist which gives them traction, and a cover of normality?I would contend that it is the changing nature of "normality" against which they are protesting. Seriously, I'm sure they aren't considered "normal" among their peers (respectability gets little respect when you're 16).

[Atticus]

You are, of course, welcome to argue that these things are not related by the same principle previously discussed. I tried that. It didn't work. :cool:

[Lumpen Prole]

Would you mind reiterating that argument? It is not clear to me where it was made.

[Atticus]

Would you mind reiterating that argument? It is not clear to me where it was made.Post #79, last paragraph. Your response in post #80 was a generalization without foundation, which is what I've been pointing out. You conveniently conflated one issue (the topic of the thread) with another (federal policy regarding contraceptives) based on your assumption that it is the "same people" backing each. That's the thing about religious conservatives, I guess: they all look alike. :cool:

[Lumpen Prole]

Post #79, last paragraph. Your response in post #80 was a generalization without foundation, which is what I've been pointing out. You conveniently conflated one issue (the topic of the thread) with another (federal policy regarding contraceptives) based on your assumption that it is the "same people" backing each. That's the thing about religious conservatives, I guess: they all look alike. :cool:

You've misinterpreted my point. Imposing one's moral standards onto others in objectionable in principle. This was related to the fact that you were arguing that the behavior of the people described in the thread topic was negligible insofar as they would unlikely affect others lives directly. There was no explicit disagreement here, but you seemed to imply in your posts that religious conservatives trying to impose there own moral standards on a more general scale wasn't a big deal because people such as those described in the thread topic were unlikely to achieve any practical success. My point in mentioning something such as same sex education was that it is an example of religious conservatives imposing there moral standards on others, this time with practical success that does directly affect others (am I using 'affect' correctly this word is irritating). Both examples reduce to one group of people who wish to generalize their moral standards to those without the same standards, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to vocalize objections to an instance such as that described in the thread topic, which is unlikely to materialize into anything significant.

[Atticus]

You've misinterpreted my point. Imposing one's moral standards onto others in objectionable in principle. This was related to the fact that you were arguing that the behavior of the people described in the thread topic was negligible insofar as they would unlikely affect others lives directly. There was no explicit disagreement here, but you seemed to imply in your posts that religious conservatives trying to impose there own moral standards on a more general scale wasn't a big deal because people such as those described in the thread topic were unlikely to achieve any practical success. My point in mentioning something such as same sex education was that it is an example of religious conservatives imposing there moral standards on others, this time with practical success that does directly affect others (am I using 'affect' correctly this word is irritating). Both examples reduce to one group of people who wish to generalize their moral standards to those without the same standards, and therefore it is perfectly appropriate to vocalize objections to an instance such as that described in the thread topic, which is unlikely to materialize into anything significant.You are still tarring two different groups with the same brush. This is very much like a political conservative seeing that both communists and liberals want to take from the rich in order to ameliorate the suffering of those with less, and thus calling all liberals "communists." It's a condemnable habit and a silly thing to do. Bringing up a group many people object to strongly in order to discredit another group fewer people object to less strongly is a fallacious argument.

[GI Joe]

So you either support a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage as well as one which bans going to parties, or you support neither?

I have never said I support such an amendment, were did this come from. I dont like the constitution ****ed with for morality/religous type issues.

[GI Joe]

It is wrong for two men to have sex, but it is okay (if still wrong) for two women... because you like it?

Your logic escapes me.

Ethos


well then take some logic classes.

I like blasting down the freeway on my bike at 130mph or my hot rod even though i know its bad and wrong, but its fun.

[Ethos]

well then take some logic classes.

I like blasting down the freeway on my bike at 130mph or my hot rod even though i know its bad and wrong, but its fun.

Aside from being illegal, what makes doing this "wrong"?

[Lumpen Prole]

You are still tarring two different groups with the same brush. This is very much like a political conservative seeing that both communists and liberals want to take from the rich in order to ameliorate the suffering of those with less, and thus calling all liberals "communists." It's a condemnable habit and a silly thing to do. Bringing up a group many people object to strongly in order to discredit another group fewer people object to less strongly is a fallacious argument.

Again, you seem to be missing the fact that these two groups are connected by the same thing (willing to impose their moral standards onto others), which I am, in principle, against. This holds true for any group of people. The ones I discussed just happen to be "family values" Christian conservaties.

[Atticus]

Again, you seem to be missing the fact that these two groups are connected by the same thing (willing to impose their moral standards onto others), which I am, in principle, against. This holds true for any group of people. The ones I discussed just happen to be "family values" Christian conservaties.And yet they aren't the same group--they've created no coalition--theyare only connected by your assertion. I'd also point out that your opposition to them indicates that you are willing to impose your moral standards onto others as well--they're just different standards. And there isn't any indication of exactly what standards each group wants to uphold, so your connection of them to each other is....premature.

[Soren]

And yet they aren't the same group--they've created no coalition--theyare only connected by your assertion. I'd also point out that your opposition to them indicates that you are willing to impose your moral standards onto others as well--they're just different standards. And there isn't any indication of exactly what standards each group wants to uphold, so your connection of them to each other is....premature.Agreed. Unfortunately government can't occur unless someone, somewhere is willing to say, these are the moral standards we are willing to enforce. I'm certainly glad our laws come out against murder, theft and the like. Sure those ones may seem like obvious, and very uncontroversial moral stands, but these laws are certainly are based on certain concrete notions of what morality is. The same goes for other laws too. The trouble happens when laws are based on an excessively exclusive or exclusionary notion of what morality is. I don't think, for example, that we should ban the use of certain traditional hallucinogens used in various Native American rites, just because I think they can be harmfully abused . I think the potential abuse of alcohol is plenty harmful too, but I'm not pressing for a ban on the use of sacramental wine from various Christian religious services either. The real difficulty is in judging when the moral stance you want to sign into law is too specific to one group and/or unduly exclusionary toward others. I won't pretend this sort of choice is easy, but I will say that the stance Lumpen Prole claims to support is in fact impossible.

[Lumpen Prole]

And yet they aren't the same group--they've created no coalition--theyare only connected by your assertion. I'd also point out that your opposition to them indicates that you are willing to impose your moral standards onto others as well--they're just different standards. And there isn't any indication of exactly what standards each group wants to uphold, so your connection of them to each other is....premature.

I have never stated that they have formed some coalition or are composed of the exact same persons, and I think you are well aware of this. Again, I am talking about the principle of the matter (what you have called 'assertion'), which connects the aforementioned examples of family values groups imposing their moral standards on others. I also do not understand how I am imposing my own moral standards on others when all I am arguing is that no one should impose their own moral standards onto a wider audience when those standards are directly derived from religious beliefs and we live in a society where that would contradict the Constitution. The U.S. Constitution is the standard by which we make decisions about the behavior of all citizens.

[Atticus]

Again, I am talking about the principle of the matter (what you have called 'assertion'), which connects the aforementioned examples of family values groups imposing their moral standards on others.And yet this is very much like saying that all Muslims are terrorists--if one group has defined its mission in one way and another group as defined its mission another way, you cannot connect them on "principle." You're conflating them because it is convenient to do so, not because they are connected--as you have just admitted. They don't want to impose their moral standards on anyone other than themselves--except through prayer or persuasion, which I'm sure you are not opposed to their doing, since such an opposition would betray the first amendment. If they were advocating changes in public policy and acting in some way to accomplish those chan