Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[jimbogumbo]

Note: I believe (personally) that the judge was the one cancelled.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/standford-dei-dean-on-leave-interrupting-confronting-federal-judge-campus-event

[Wahoo Redux]

You do realize, Marshy, that Christians with your beliefs are not the ones we are worried about, right?  Although I don't know that what you say there is necessarily what past comments reflect.

Given the high percentage of people who identify as Christian in the US, if most of them ascribed to the very conservative views that people worry about they would have a massively bigger effect than they do. Just goes to show that "Christians" like "white people" or "black people" is a much more diverse group than many suggest, and treating them as monolithic is similarly unproductive.

I treat no one as monomythic.  I point out the problems.  I am a lapsed Episcopalian who grew up in a very decorous, extremely moderate, modern, reasonably open, non-evangelical church.  As a teenager I actually thought about becoming a minister.  Then I realized I was mistaking the personal affection I held for the people in the church with faith, which faltered as soon as I was out of this little community.

My sister married into a devout, politicized Catholic family.  There were some problems.

My first wife was a non-practicing Catholic.

I spent a fair amount of my youth in Salt Lake City because we had non-Mormon family there.

So no, my friend, I understand a lot about denominations, at least as much as most laypeople do, perhaps as much as you do.

I refer to the people who are deeply ensconced in prejudices and hypocrisy who use Christianity as their aegis or the people who are fundamentalist zealots.  And there are enough of these people to have an effect.  That's the problem. 

[Wahoo Redux]

Note: I believe (personally) that the judge was the one cancelled.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/standford-dei-dean-on-leave-interrupting-confronting-federal-judge-campus-event

You beat me to it!!!!

[kaysixteen]

Actually no.   Christianity did not inherit its specific, distinctive morality from its Greco-Roman pagan milieu.   Really, it didn't.

[Kron3007]

Actually no.   Christianity did not inherit its specific, distinctive morality from its Greco-Roman pagan milieu.   Really, it didn't.

Whatever.  I think the majority of pre-christian cultures agreed that theft and murder are bad.  I'm sure there are some aspects that are different, but I believe most of our shared core morality predates Jesus.  This is even more evident since Christianity is built around the old testament, but the new testament rejects much of it, showing a natural evolution derived from previous cultures. I don't see how you can deny that Christian morals were built around previous cultures.

Heck, many of the stories in the Bible itself are "borrowed" from Greek and other mythologies.

[FishProf]

Actually no.   Christianity did not inherit its specific, distinctive morality from its Greco-Roman pagan milieu.   Really, it didn't.

What is Christianity's "specific, distinctive morality" of which you speak?

[marshwiggle]

Actually no.   Christianity did not inherit its specific, distinctive morality from its Greco-Roman pagan milieu.   Really, it didn't.

Whatever.  I think the majority of pre-christian cultures agreed that theft and murder are bad.  I'm sure there are some aspects that are different, but I believe most of our shared core morality predates Jesus.  This is even more evident since Christianity is built around the old testament, but the new testament rejects much of it, showing a natural evolution derived from previous cultures. I don't see how you can deny that Christian morals were built around previous cultures.

Heck, many of the stories in the Bible itself are "borrowed" from Greek and other mythologies.

If there is a God, and all human beings have a built-in desire for deeper meaning and transcendence, then it is completely natural that there should be all kinds of moral impulses that are not bound by geography, history, etc. The idea of a "God-shaped void" is ancient, and itself not limited to a single culture. (In case it isn't obvious, this isn't a proof that God exists; it is a clarification of how the same fact can have different interpretations based on different underlying assumptions.  Facts by themselves rarely "prove" anything. The motion of the inner planets were explained by Ptolemy, but the Copernican system had a much simpler explanation that had much more predictive value.)

[marshwiggle]

I refer to the people who are deeply ensconced in prejudices and hypocrisy who use Christianity as their aegis or the people who are fundamentalist zealots.  And there are enough of these people to have an effect.  That's the problem.

Sure. And there are people who have broken up their marriages and families for "love", because they "have to be with the one they love". And people have killed their teenage daughters for "honour". The list of supposedly good reasons people have had for atrocious acts is endless. I too (like many Christians) am appalled by many things that are done in the name of "Christianity", but just like the above examples of "love" and "honour", it doesn't take a very deep look to realize that the impulses driving the behaviour have much less to do with the stated principle than with some very basic human flaws and vices. It's a ridiculous red herring to discuss the "official" cause because it fails to address the real issue.

The way to evaluate someone's principles is to watch for when it costs them, rather than when it conveniently suits them.

[Kron3007]

Actually no.   Christianity did not inherit its specific, distinctive morality from its Greco-Roman pagan milieu.   Really, it didn't.

Whatever.  I think the majority of pre-christian cultures agreed that theft and murder are bad.  I'm sure there are some aspects that are different, but I believe most of our shared core morality predates Jesus.  This is even more evident since Christianity is built around the old testament, but the new testament rejects much of it, showing a natural evolution derived from previous cultures. I don't see how you can deny that Christian morals were built around previous cultures.

Heck, many of the stories in the Bible itself are "borrowed" from Greek and other mythologies.

If there is a God, and all human beings have a built-in desire for deeper meaning and transcendence, then it is completely natural that there should be all kinds of moral impulses that are not bound by geography, history, etc. The idea of a "God-shaped void" is ancient, and itself not limited to a single culture. (In case it isn't obvious, this isn't a proof that God exists; it is a clarification of how the same fact can have different interpretations based on different underlying assumptions.  Facts by themselves rarely "prove" anything. The motion of the inner planets were explained by Ptolemy, but the Copernican system had a much simpler explanation that had much more predictive value.)

Sure, so you agree that most of the core morality is not unique or derived specifically from Christianity.  That is exactly what I was saying.

However, I would also add that morality and such could just as easily be derived through evolution without the hand or belief in God.  It is beneficial for a social animal not to murder and such.  As society becomes more complex, these rules become more complex and nuanced.  Even godless animals have moral codes, which sometimes align with our own.

[marshwiggle]

Actually no.   Christianity did not inherit its specific, distinctive morality from its Greco-Roman pagan milieu.   Really, it didn't.

Whatever.  I think the majority of pre-christian cultures agreed that theft and murder are bad.  I'm sure there are some aspects that are different, but I believe most of our shared core morality predates Jesus.  This is even more evident since Christianity is built around the old testament, but the new testament rejects much of it, showing a natural evolution derived from previous cultures. I don't see how you can deny that Christian morals were built around previous cultures.

Heck, many of the stories in the Bible itself are "borrowed" from Greek and other mythologies.

If there is a God, and all human beings have a built-in desire for deeper meaning and transcendence, then it is completely natural that there should be all kinds of moral impulses that are not bound by geography, history, etc. The idea of a "God-shaped void" is ancient, and itself not limited to a single culture. (In case it isn't obvious, this isn't a proof that God exists; it is a clarification of how the same fact can have different interpretations based on different underlying assumptions.  Facts by themselves rarely "prove" anything. The motion of the inner planets were explained by Ptolemy, but the Copernican system had a much simpler explanation that had much more predictive value.)

Sure, so you agree that most of the core morality is not unique or derived specifically from Christianity.  That is exactly what I was saying.

The trick comes in defining what is "core". Since slavery has existed for most of human history in all kinds of cultures, is the rejection of slavery a non-core value?

However, I would also add that morality and such could just as easily be derived through evolution without the hand or belief in God.  It is beneficial for a social animal not to murder and such.  As society becomes more complex, these rules become more complex and nuanced.  Even godless animals have moral codes, which sometimes align with our own.

Sure.The simple fact that something is apparently "universal" can't definitively *establish why it is universal. It's an inconvenient truth for people bent "proving" their view of the world is the correct one, whatever that view is.


(*However, it does require an intellectually honest person to show how their view makes that outcome plausible.)

[apl68]

Note: I believe (personally) that the judge was the one cancelled.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/standford-dei-dean-on-leave-interrupting-confronting-federal-judge-campus-event

I was wondering whether anybody would get around to posting this story on this thread.  It's a pretty appalling incident.  This is supposed to be an elite law school!  If any body of students should be comfortable with hearing and debating--as opposed to merely shouting down--controversial opinions, it should be they.  Also, that DEI officer's conduct tends to confirm skeptics of DEI officers' worst suspicions about them.  It's going to intensify opposition to DEI.  DEI advocates couldn't afford to have something like this happen.

[marshwiggle]

Note: I believe (personally) that the judge was the one cancelled.

https://www.foxnews.com/media/standford-dei-dean-on-leave-interrupting-confronting-federal-judge-campus-event

I was wondering whether anybody would get around to posting this story on this thread.  It's a pretty appalling incident.  This is supposed to be an elite law school!  If any body of students should be comfortable with hearing and debating--as opposed to merely shouting down--controversial opinions, it should be they.  Also, that DEI officer's conduct tends to confirm skeptics of DEI officers' worst suspicions about them.  It's going to intensify opposition to DEI.  DEI advocates couldn't afford to have something like this happen.

And she was the " associate dean of diversity, equity and inclusion" at the Stanford Law School ! So not just some functionary from the wider university. I'm truly baffled by law schools doing all of this cancelling over language given that they're (supposedly) preparing students to be in courtrooms, where by definition all kinds of things will have to be presented and stated as evidence and testimony, and in an intentionally adversarial context. These graduates are likely to crumple the first time they encounter the necessary environment of a courtroom.

[Wahoo Redux]

I refer to the people who are deeply ensconced in prejudices and hypocrisy who use Christianity as their aegis or the people who are fundamentalist zealots.  And there are enough of these people to have an effect.  That's the problem.

Sure. And there are people who have broken up their marriages and families for "love", because they "have to be with the one they love". And people have killed their teenage daughters for "honour". The list of supposedly good reasons people have had for atrocious acts is endless. I too (like many Christians) am appalled by many things that are done in the name of "Christianity", but just like the above examples of "love" and "honour", it doesn't take a very deep look to realize that the impulses driving the behaviour have much less to do with the stated principle than with some very basic human flaws and vices. It's a ridiculous red herring to discuss the "official" cause because it fails to address the real issue.

The way to evaluate someone's principles is to watch for when it costs them, rather than when it conveniently suits them.

Not sure what your point is, my friend.

[Wahoo Redux]

The Latest from IHE:

Stanford DEI Dean on Leave After Disrupted Event

DEI Statement Nixed After Professor Complains, Links to Racist Article

Lower Deck:

An English professor wrote in a conservative media outlet, opposing his department's new "anti-racist statement." The next month, the statement was gone. His own statement of protest linked to a racist column.

House Panel Targets Universities, Scholars

Lower Deck:

House Republicans investigating the "weaponization of the federal government" want information from several disinformation researchers who were recently accused of being part of the "censorship industrial complex."
[/url]

[marshwiggle]

I refer to the people who are deeply ensconced in prejudices and hypocrisy who use Christianity as their aegis or the people who are fundamentalist zealots.  And there are enough of these people to have an effect.  That's the problem.

Sure. And there are people who have broken up their marriages and families for "love", because they "have to be with the one they love". And people have killed their teenage daughters for "honour". The list of supposedly good reasons people have had for atrocious acts is endless. I too (like many Christians) am appalled by many things that are done in the name of "Christianity", but just like the above examples of "love" and "honour", it doesn't take a very deep look to realize that the impulses driving the behaviour have much less to do with the stated principle than with some very basic human flaws and vices. It's a ridiculous red herring to discuss the "official" cause because it fails to address the real issue.

The way to evaluate someone's principles is to watch for when it costs them, rather than when it conveniently suits them.

Not sure what your point is, my friend.

For just about any issue, you will probably find Christians on both sides. So, for instance, you will probably find people who are pro-choice who will argue that it is their faith that is responsible. There are lots of Christians who vote Democrat, who would say it is for reasons of faith. If you're going to suggest people shouldn't vote a certain way based on their faith, then that should apply to people all over the political spectrum. Rejecting faith-based arguments only when they give the "wrong" answer is no better than those who selectively use faith-based arguments on the other side on any issue.