tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post6701559419568071906..comments2024-03-26T09:49:07.212-07:00Comments on The Scratching Post: Ayn Rand And The KKKK T Cathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-33390433337083348692017-04-20T20:29:47.757-07:002017-04-20T20:29:47.757-07:00^ Ah, and like clockwork, it's time for ye old...^ Ah, and like clockwork, it's time for ye olde "More in Sorrow Than in Anger" shtick.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-90928134489123357252017-04-20T11:17:50.080-07:002017-04-20T11:17:50.080-07:00Ilion: I expect you want me to be all offended abo...Ilion: I expect you want me to be all offended about this, and maybe writhe around on the ground crying "A touch, a touch, I do confess it!" But I have to say I'm more just puzzled. What on earth are you accusing me of lying about?<br /><br />tim eiselehttp://somethingscrawlinginmyhair.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-62467847528324798422017-04-20T09:50:58.012-07:002017-04-20T09:50:58.012-07:00^ Mr Eisele's assertion is not true, and he *k...^ Mr Eisele's assertion is not true, and he *knows* that it isn't true, just as *you* (both the owner of this blog and the general reader) know it isn't true. Yet, you (again, both the owner of this blog and the general reader) are far more likely to take offence that I have called him a liar than you are to take offence at the lie itself.<br /><br />And *that* Gentle Reader is why our civilization is doomed.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-2113981938875641612017-04-20T08:31:30.512-07:002017-04-20T08:31:30.512-07:00Yes, moral codes are backed up by mutual agreement...Yes, moral codes are backed up by mutual agreement. I would argue that the same is true regardless of whether it is a secular society, or a religious one. It's just that in the religious society the mutual agreement is "this is what God wants", while in the secular society the agreement is "this is the way that we want to treat each other". In practice, I don't see that one way gives significantly different results from the other. <br /><br />And if you don't think that the Church arrives at its doctrines through mutual agreement (at least among the priesthood), then what were the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council" rel="nofollow">Ecumenical Councils</a> for?tim eiselehttp://somethingscrawlinginmyhair.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-45082896431693487882017-04-19T07:50:34.742-07:002017-04-19T07:50:34.742-07:00Ivyan, the message behind Atlas Shrugged, at least...Ivyan, the message behind Atlas Shrugged, at least as much as I could make it out through Rand's ghastly prose, was that pursuit of the almighty dollar led to a good and civil society. Or something like that. Forrest, Planned Parenthood and cattle feed lots provide a counterexamples, at least for creatures considered non-human.<br /><br />Tim, in a secular society the Golden Rule is backed up by ... what? Mutual agreement? Nathan Bedford Forrest and Hillary Clinton are what you get when society comes to a mutual agreement that a sector of the population isn't really human after all. NBF had no fear of becoming a slave because he was white. Hillary has no fear of abortion because she's already been born. There was/is no risk to either of them.K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-15240158831003463992017-04-19T07:28:45.934-07:002017-04-19T07:28:45.934-07:00"Note that slavery was done in by evangelical..."Note that slavery was done in by evangelical Christians in England"<br /><br />Specifically, the Quakers (who I guess are in kind of a funny position, where some Quakers can be considered evangelical, but others are not, and still others are actually closer to secular humanists). Other groups allied with them later, but from everything I've read, it was the Quakers who were the originators and the real driving force for abolition in both the UK and the US.<br /><br />As for the moral principle that opposes slavery, isn't it just a straightforward application of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule" rel="nofollow">"Golden Rule"</a>? As in, pretty much nobody wants to be a slave themselves, and so they should not enslave others? That's a pretty basic moral principle, is it really restricted to christianity?tim eiselehttp://somethingscrawlinginmyhair.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-66565770441570846622017-04-19T00:49:19.946-07:002017-04-19T00:49:19.946-07:00I'm not following how Rand ties into this.
...I'm not following how Rand ties into this. <br /><br />(I've read about 2/3 of Atlas Shrugged. I couldn't decide if it was a tediously repetitive political treatise or an overworked romance novel.)Jedi Master Ivyannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-44339636907528990022017-04-18T19:37:21.680-07:002017-04-18T19:37:21.680-07:00The reason -- the only reason -- that the pro-choi...The reason -- <i>the only reason</i> -- that the pro-choicers of the time were trying to use the Bible to justify their choice is because it was on the Bible, and on the Bible alone, that the social attack on the "peculiar institution" was advanced.<br /><br />"<i>However, without Christianity, I would argue you don't have a sufficiently large core of principled people to overcome these pathologies. Note that slavery was done in by evangelical Christians in England.</i>"<br /><br />My (direct line) great-grandfather was not a Christian until about the time the War Between the States broke out. He was said to be 1/2 Cherokee -- he is one of the few who escaped Andy Jackson's (*) round-up and forced-march into the wilderness. He *also* was a slave-owner ... until he became a Christian.<br /><br /><br /><br />(*) yes, he was born that long ago.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-81707418301689456452017-04-18T17:12:36.956-07:002017-04-18T17:12:36.956-07:00Anon, YES! That is exactly right! That was my poin...Anon, YES! That is exactly right! That was my point in <a href="http://ktcatspost.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-benedict-option-in-antebellum-south.html" rel="nofollow">my first post on Rod Dreher's Benedict Option</a>. All kinds of "Christians" made their peace with slavery. Today, all kinds of "Christians" make their peace with abortion and/or illegitimacy despite the horrors and the sin.<br /><br />However, without Christianity, I would argue you don't have a sufficiently large core of principled people to overcome these pathologies. Note that slavery was done in by evangelical Christians in England.K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-30878193102637301412017-04-18T15:36:34.555-07:002017-04-18T15:36:34.555-07:00where that leads in the absence of other, dominant...<i> where that leads in the absence of other, dominant principles.</i><br /><br />But didn't buckets of good Christians end up right in the same place? Your premise seems to be that somehow you end up with better morals if you have Christian theology to keep you on the straight, but in many cases Christians ended up using the Bible to justify slavery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-75180278616876755652017-04-18T08:52:21.236-07:002017-04-18T08:52:21.236-07:00WC, I would think that could be swept away pretty ...WC, I would think that could be swept away pretty easily if the money was good enough. Again, why not? Better still, if you, like Planned Parenthood, deny the humanity of a certain group, then Rand's principle, which you linked, does not apply.<br /><br />As a soft libertarian, I recognize the power of self-interest. It's just that Forrest provides an excellent example of where that leads in the absence of other, dominant principles.K T Cathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10259428595745509790noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22301740.post-26655742024021882642017-04-18T07:16:14.022-07:002017-04-18T07:16:14.022-07:00I'm not an Ayn Rand scholar, but libertarians ...I'm not an Ayn Rand scholar, but libertarians in general believe in the "non-aggression principle."<br /><br />This passage from Rand seems to indicate she agrees:<br /><br />http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/physical_force.htmlWC Varoneshttp://www.wcvarones.comnoreply@blogger.com