Hi Eddie,
Thanks for your comments.
eddiec <
[email protected]> writes:
> I don't think that an option being 'unChristian' makes it invalid,
If a person adheres to a religion[*] in which violence against people is
OK (the end justifies the means[**]), and in which it is OK to deny
medical care to those who need it (whether through their own stupidity
or not), then that person should feel free to ignore my comments.
On the other hand, Christians (still quite a few of us) can't ignore
my comments.
[*] And yes, +everyone+ adheres to a religion, even "atheists".
[**] An ethical principle we are all taught as children to abhor, yet
we find it everywhere in society; and most of us find that
unremarkable.
> especially when we're dealing with a society/population which generally
> is not...
Actually, our whole society is imbued with "Christian" principles at
some level (some would say "contaminated"). Even those who profess no
particular organised religion still hold "religious" beliefs (whether
they realise it or not), and by default, many of those beliefs and
values can be traced to Christianity (in the case of Western society).
Meanwhile, a Christian does not need to apologise for promoting
Christian values, whether to Christians or non-Christians. Of course,
this does not imply the desire to force (impossible anyway) beliefs,
values and practices onto the unwilling (as many "Christians" and
adherents to other "faiths" would want to do). A Muslim or a Christian
theocracy (forcing religious rules onto a whole "nation"), for
example, must be abhorrent to all people who value human dignity and
freedom (which a true Christian does).
> Might be good principles, but i think they're better framed as
> 'unethical' rather than 'unChristian'...
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is ethical and just. That is
the rule of law in which retribution is taken for offences
committed. Christianity is beyond "ethics", and that's why it was and
still is so revolutionary. Even today, most people do not realise that
Christianity is not simply a system of ethics. Although Christians are
"ethical", Christianity cannot be reduced to a system of ethics.
No philosopher has been able to define a system of ethics that is both
(a) universal, and (b) not based on absolute Christian (or other
religious) principles; and that is not from want of trying. Such
attempts at ethical humanism will be forever condemned, in my opinion,
to the hell of moral relativism, which ultimately means that one may
do whatever one wishes, so long as the ends are perceived as "good" or
desirable.
So, ethics, in the sense the scientific humanist understands, is no
protection against the likes of, for example, ******'s nazism or
Mussolini's fascism, or the secret policies of their present day
followers who are hiding today in plain sight.
>
> And while I appreciate your comments re consumerism, I think using them
> as an argument against mandatory helmet laws (or any law for that
> matter) is odd and an awfully long bow.
The answer must then be that my comments regarding the properties
of... property... were not intended to be an argument against
mandatory helmet laws. They were, in fact, intended to show a more
general point about how people compromise their own ethical standards
through fear of losing what they think they "own". Bosses, for
instance, just love it when their employees have mortgages to pay,
because it makes them so much easier to control (because the employee
will do things that contradict their ethical values, and rationalise
it by their "need" to look after their family).
What has that got to do with helmet laws? Any law (of the type we are
discussing) is backed by the threat of violent coercion. In our
society, that means the threat to steal one's property, or to
imprison. In other countries[***], state violence extends to torture
and terrorism. We now know that this is the case in the United States,
for instance.
Since most people seem to be somewhat lacking in the fortitude
department, or otherwise overly attached to their possessions and
comfortable way of life, it is apparent that the mere threat to steal
one's possessions is sufficient to keep most people in line, without
having to resort to imprisonment and torture.
Let's have a look at a hypothetical situation in a hypothetical time
and place. (Yes, that means this example is entirely fictitious,
though based on plausible elements.)
Person A (P[a]) has a religious belief about head coverings that rules
out wearing a helmet. He therefore rides his bicycle without a helmet
and is booked several times by the police. He refuses to pay the fines
for several reasons: (1) he will not pay a fine for following his
religious beliefs; (2) his government sent troops to help kill people
overseas who were defending their country from foreign invasion, and
therefore paying a fine voluntarily would be providing material
assistance to a criminal, terrorist organisation; and (3) he will not
pay a fine for refusing to abdicate his personal responsibility for
deciding what is the best thing to do in his own personal circumstances.
As a result, P[a] was taken to court, where a judgement was made that
his car would be taken from him by force, and his driving licence
cancelled (in this place, unbelievably, you might think, people
actually have to have permission to operate a motor vehicle,
regardless of their abilities to do it safely).
There was no practical way that P[a] could get to work without driving
a vehicle, so he lost his job, and lost his house. Luckily, he found
another job within cycling distance, though it barely paid enough to
pay the rent. Unfortunately, he was booked several more times for
riding without a helmet.
The second time before the courts, he was found to have nothing worth
stealing, so he was imprisoned. In prison, he was abused in countless
ways by prisoners and prison officers alike, with no possibility of
redress, because nobody is interested in the plight of a criminal.
Now, Person B (P
) on the other hand, also has a religious belief
about head coverings that rules out wearing a helmet. He, however,
does not own a car, and must cycle to work to support a wife and
fifteen children. But wearing or not wearing a helmet is such a
trifling matter, he reasons, especially compared with clothing and
housing a family. So, although he knows that wearing a helmet is wrong
(because his sincere religious beliefs tell him so), he nevertheless
compromises his religious and ethical beliefs and wears a helmet while
cycling. P, now a hypocrite because of fear of losing possessions,
continues to live a plentiful life as the shell of a human being.
I hope you enjoyed this fairy tale! 
I hope the exaggeration
explains what possessions, and the fear of losing them, has to do with
helmet laws (or any other law which purports to take away an
individual's inalienable right to choose for herself what is right
according to her own conscience).
[***] And possibly secretly even in our own.
>
> Eddie(Christian - not that there's anything wrong with that..)c
>
Well, you know, that Bush guy claims to be Christian, too... ;-)
Catchya.
David
--
David Trudgett
http://www.zeta.org.au/~wpower/
All these men who were going to murder or to torture the famishing and
defenseless creatures who provide them their sustenance had the air of
men who knew very well that they were doing their duty, and some were
even proud, were "glorying" in what they were doing.
-- Leo Tolstoy, "The Kingdom of God is Within You"
