Or Reverend, Minister, Brother, Father, Shaman, Pastor, Priest... I haven't really decided yet. But so far I like Magus best, so I'll probably stick with that
( Read more... )
I'm kind of leery of the idea of "rights" in general . . . I'd be more in favor of responsibilities . . . i.e., instead of everyone having a "right to life," everyone has a "responsibility not to kill each other." But that's a sideline.
What I meant by trampling on others' (perceived) rights was something along the lines of "Partner A has Abusive Partner B. Abusive Partner B believes it's within his/her rights to smack Partner A around, viciously. Partner A is dependent and actually agrees with Abusive Partner B." This construct is obviously against the rules of society . . . but if s/he refuses to pursue action on his/her own, does Bystander C(hurch) have a moral obligation to intervene? Suppose A and B are faithful members of your group. Peaceful entreaties are met with a polite "mind your own business." Do you respect their 'rights?' As a religious community tolerate the abuser's continued attendance?
Now I'm Advocating, just a teensy bit, I admit. I've given the libertarian perspective some thought, and it doesn't mesh with what complexity theory tells me about building a stable/peaceful human society. Which is a whole 'nother ball of worms.
From my own perspective, which is now the grounds we are working on since this is exactly the kind of thing the church requires we determine on our own, it is my opinion that bystander C (me, now), may continue to intervene only with continued (peaceful) attempts to encourage A to ask for help, or realize that what is happening to him/her is infringing on his/her rights. If s/he continues to agree with B, then it is not my place to forcibly keep them apart.
Another member of the church may well decide something different depending on the way they interpret morality, peace, and rights. That is the beauty of a flexible belief structure.
Fair enough. I'm not sure that I agree, but I have the sneaking suspicion that my reticence still fits into your worldview. Your belief structure is robust.
On my sideline, I don't think that a responsibility would necessarily derive from a right. Responsibility frames the question differently . . . (and I recognize that I'm not being constitutionally literal when I pick this up). Suppose you have a "right to life." I think it's a pretty ridiculous right, all told . . . The blind, random forces of the reality can't be made to respect it; if you go swimming with alligators, you'll probably be eaten. Fall off a building and chances are good you'll splat. Basically, the universe at large doesn't recognize this "universal" right. It's invalid.
If we say, though, that as members of society we each have a responsibility not to kill, that re-frames the "right to life" into something that might be real. The essence of it is an implied culpability--you and you alone are to answer for your ability to respect or disrespect the responsibility, and it's possible to derive from it a social contract . . . that is, I will take responsibility not to kill you if you take responsibility not to kill me. This communication forms the foundation of modern society.
I was reading Guns, Germs, and Steel again. Jarod Diamond has some interesting things to say about religion--a lot of unflattering things, to be sure--but he also assigns it a function. That function is to provide a reason for people living in communities that are not based on kin-bonds not to kill each other (it's adaptive!). It's an interesting lens to view the world through . . . kind of brutal and evolutionary and wild and beautiful but scary as hell at the same time.
as for the sideline, you've got a very interesting idea there. The problem I see is that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The reason everyone has the "responsibility not to kill each other" is because everyone has a "right to life".
What I meant by trampling on others' (perceived) rights was something along the lines of "Partner A has Abusive Partner B. Abusive Partner B believes it's within his/her rights to smack Partner A around, viciously. Partner A is dependent and actually agrees with Abusive Partner B." This construct is obviously against the rules of society . . . but if s/he refuses to pursue action on his/her own, does Bystander C(hurch) have a moral obligation to intervene? Suppose A and B are faithful members of your group. Peaceful entreaties are met with a polite "mind your own business." Do you respect their 'rights?' As a religious community tolerate the abuser's continued attendance?
Now I'm Advocating, just a teensy bit, I admit. I've given the libertarian perspective some thought, and it doesn't mesh with what complexity theory tells me about building a stable/peaceful human society. Which is a whole 'nother ball of worms.
Reply
Another member of the church may well decide something different depending on the way they interpret morality, peace, and rights. That is the beauty of a flexible belief structure.
Reply
On my sideline, I don't think that a responsibility would necessarily derive from a right. Responsibility frames the question differently . . . (and I recognize that I'm not being constitutionally literal when I pick this up). Suppose you have a "right to life." I think it's a pretty ridiculous right, all told . . . The blind, random forces of the reality can't be made to respect it; if you go swimming with alligators, you'll probably be eaten. Fall off a building and chances are good you'll splat. Basically, the universe at large doesn't recognize this "universal" right. It's invalid.
If we say, though, that as members of society we each have a responsibility not to kill, that re-frames the "right to life" into something that might be real. The essence of it is an implied culpability--you and you alone are to answer for your ability to respect or disrespect the responsibility, and it's possible to derive from it a social contract . . . that is, I will take responsibility not to kill you if you take responsibility not to kill me. This communication forms the foundation of modern society.
I was reading Guns, Germs, and Steel again. Jarod Diamond has some interesting things to say about religion--a lot of unflattering things, to be sure--but he also assigns it a function. That function is to provide a reason for people living in communities that are not based on kin-bonds not to kill each other (it's adaptive!). It's an interesting lens to view the world through . . . kind of brutal and evolutionary and wild and beautiful but scary as hell at the same time.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment