for the record, i agree with Him almost 100%. and no, he did not in any way indicate that he would support a theocracy, pseudo-autocratic, fascist, or otherwise
( ... )
if every political candidate actually tried to appease the whole nation, there would be no political parties, there would be no complex system of far-left versus far-right versus straight-down-the middle. the field would be a little diverse, yes, but only because of the candidates' perceptions of the needs, wants, and rights of the people, and not their actual views.
And there's something wrong with that? I'm not seeing what is bad here, other than a candidate might spread himself a bit thin trying to please everyone.
i didnt say there was necessarily anything wrong with that. however, a large part of our political system, candidates running against candidates and people voting for them, relies on the candidates having separate views, i.e. beliefs. if every candidate did try to actually please everyone, all we would have to base our votes on is who we think is smarter...and i'm not saying that's bad either, except that it would give us a much smaller variety of choices.
if i recall, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is nearly a direct quote of the Bible (Matthew 7:12a NIV "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you")
and I used it as an example; the origin of that worded phrase does not serve to discredit my purpose.
That wording is taught in American elementary schools to children of all cultures as 'the golden rule.' Thus I use it's example as something we can all recognize.
It needs to be understood that 'law,' and furthermore the primitive laws of developing societies, are not by definition some sort of written-down, scribed set of guidelines. The very definition of a social contract implies understood guidelines, taboos, and mores. It was actually Hammurabi's written laws that set such a historical precedent for institutionalized Law.
ultimately, although I didn't study sociology, I agree with what you said. I don't know why I thought you were buddhist, maybe another of Jay's friends is. Or maybe my brain is just bad.
all i said that the laws of our country were largely based on the Christian faith. and the same principle applies to other countries as well...people in asia, india, and africa based their laws off of their religion, or set of beliefs. whether they called it a "religion" or a "faith" or not, what you believe defines your religion. which, come to think of it, is exactly what Mr. Him was probably trying to say.
But my point is that it's not. Social contract and community compromises themselves precede religious 'precedents' when it comes to the primordial ethics of right and wrong in mortality. Even the most primitive of social groups, as soon as communication was possible, came to the conclusion that some freedoms were destructive to the greater whole and compromise was needed. Religious ethics develop thereafter. This is the root of sociology.
Sociology isn't some technology that was discovered and put into use, it is a branch of analytical science that simple refers to the nature of these things. Social behavior, obviously, has always existed.
The principles of social contract are innate among communicative pack animals like humans. The notion that we rightfully should not kill other members of our group for sake of ourselves is, as I said, a primordial development.
No functioning society of people, even some isolated atheistic culture (which in itself is a bit contradictory) would permit wanton, uregulated theft and murder. It goes against basic values of a community, whether it's God-fearing or not.
Reply
And there's something wrong with that? I'm not seeing what is bad here, other than a candidate might spread himself a bit thin trying to please everyone.
Reply
Reply
Is that why, in Asia, India, and Africa, rape, theft, and murder are permissable?
As far as I knew, they are not.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
That wording is taught in American elementary schools to children of all cultures as 'the golden rule.' Thus I use it's example as something we can all recognize.
It needs to be understood that 'law,' and furthermore the primitive laws of developing societies, are not by definition some sort of written-down, scribed set of guidelines. The very definition of a social contract implies understood guidelines, taboos, and mores. It was actually Hammurabi's written laws that set such a historical precedent for institutionalized Law.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
The principles of social contract are innate among communicative pack animals like humans. The notion that we rightfully should not kill other members of our group for sake of ourselves is, as I said, a primordial development.
No functioning society of people, even some isolated atheistic culture (which in itself is a bit contradictory) would permit wanton, uregulated theft and murder. It goes against basic values of a community, whether it's God-fearing or not.
Reply
Leave a comment