[Buddha-l] Re: S. Pinker

[SJZiobro at cs.com]

In a message dated 6/29/2005 11:37:39 AM Eastern Standard Time, Richard P. 
Hayes <rhayes at unm.edu> writes:

> On Wed, 2005-06-29 at 11:14 -0400, Stanley J. Ziobro II wrote:
> 
> > The dominant religious ethos in the 18th century was Christian, and it
> > remains so today in the 21st century.
> 
> There is no reason to believe either of these statements. The question
> of what a religious ethos is and what "dominant" means makes your claim
> meaningless. In other words, what you are obviously trying to do is to
> claim the USA for Christianity. I cannot think of a more offensive move
> to make.

Richard, any statement can be subjected to methodological doubt with the 
claim that there is no reason to believe what the statement articulates.  From 
this perspective I would agree with you.  That said, I see no grounds for 
reasonably disagreeing with the historical record.  We know what a religious ethos 
is, and we know what "dominant" means.  To state otherwise strikes me as 
disingenuous.  I'm not, by the way, trying to claim the USA for Christianity.  I 
shall not, however, deny the sociological reality that Christianity is the 
dominant religion here in the States.  If you take offense at this, I'll not argue 
that you should not since we are dealing with emotions, and emotions are neither 
true nor false.  If somebody wants to claim the USA for Buddhism (or Islam, 
or Judaism, or Shinto) I see nothing offensive in that, but perhap that is just 
one of my quirks.  We still have significant areas of freedom of speech left 
in the society.

> 
> > So, our nation is still basically a Christian one.
> 
> A nation dedicated to greedy consumerism, unwarranted invasions of other
> countries and abandoning its own poor and disenfranchised is Christian?
> My understanding of Christianity is admittedly limited, but I had
> thought that it was a religion that took a radical departure from the
> values of the Romans.

This is a fine rhetorical move on your part.  I happen to agree with you that 
unadulterated consumerism is antithetical to Christianity (and I suspect to 
Buddhism, right?), and I happen to agree with you that where our government has 
abandoned the poor (they are always a handy group to bring into an argument) 
and we intentionally willingly acquiesce in this abandonment, that is 
antithetical to Christianity.  But I am not willing to claim that the failings of 
Christians changes the sociological fact that the greater majority of people who 
here in the USA practice a religion (however poorly), ally themselves with some 
form of Christianity.  Speaking of the Romans, there is a judicious principle 
in Roman Law that gives expression to the fact that the misuse of some thing 
or custom or law does not nullify the good use of that same thing or custom or 
law, or that the matter in question is disproved by the misuse thereof.  
Accordingly, the fact that there are Christians who do not live up to the demands 
of the Gospel does not nullify that reality that they are Christians; they are 
simply benighted or unfaithful.

> 
> > As for your blanket statement that what binds in the 18th
> > century cannot possibly be binding in the first decade of the 21st
> > century, that is a red herring, and its obvious falsity stinks:).
> 
> That principle has been articulated by the Supreme Court on several
> occasions, in the context of this very issue. So it is neither false nor
> a red herring.

Your original statement was simply a blanket statement to the effect that 
whatever bound anybody in any manner in the 18th century "cannot possibly be 
binding in the first decade of the 21st century."  As stated, this is false.  
Nonetheless, if you accept the principle that nothing in the 18th century binds in 
the 21st, then you must agree that the freedoms guaranteed by the Bill of 
Rights do not bind the U.S. Government in this first decade of the 21st century.  
There is something counter-intuitive to this, don't you think?  I would also 
think that the Supreme Court's justification of this principle simply further 
opens the door to the judiciary subverting the legislative branches of 
government.  There is also something counter-intuitive to this, especially in light 
of the clearly articulated checks and balances mentioned in the Constitution.


> 
> > But I am surprised that you would even pretend that you are taking my
> > Hail Mary remarks seriously.
> 
> I take it the Hail Mary comment was offered in jest, and I responded in
> kind, as I'm sure you have figured out. No need to carry the joke any
> further by pretending to have been joking when in fact you were being
> serious.

I was simply responding in jest to your original Hail Mary comment made in 
jest (which I rather enjoyed).  

> 
> > My only real desire is that all people be able to nurture what is
> > condusive in their lives to authentic peace, well-being, and
> > happiness.
> 
> You evade questions much better than you answer them. (You have mastered
> the art of imitating our esteemed president.) Let me ask again: From
> what to what would you convert me or anyone else, even in jest?
> 

I really do not think that I've evaded your questions.  Perhaps you see 
evasion much better than you discern genuine answers.  If and when I pray for 
anybody's conversion my prayer primarily is that they grow in the love of God and 
of neighbor.  If you'd like, though, I can and will pray that you become an 
authentic Christian; but that is your choice, OK?  I actually do respect a person 
in their freedom to choose what ever faith they judge in conscience they must 
adhere if they are to be aware, understanding, reasonable, and responsible as 
a human being.

Regards,

Stan Ziobro
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20050630/f248d6d8/attachment.html