[Vision2020] Earmark and intial comments on Ralph's Religion and morality

[Phil Nisbet]

Ted

Ar times, though we disagree on much else, I find your arguements soar to 
the heights.  Perhaps, because indeed we are all human, the flashes of 
brilliance can lead to a higher level of expectation that may lead one to 
judge more harshly in other instances, which is unfair.

I have jumped on several groups of postings, including one of yours, that 
are articles suggesting religion to be the root of all evil and further 
mischaraterizing the religions that they seek to denigrate. Judaism as an 
historical religio-philosophical entity is very different than relgions with 
which it is lumped inthese anti-religion articles.  The Sam Harris one in 
particular is deeply concerning, since it seems to suggest that the tolerant 
forces of secular humanism are becoming intolerant and as dogmatic as the 
most zealous sectarian fanatic.

Why is it so hard for some to simply live and let live?  Because it seems to 
me that group think, a basic human response to social behavior, is far more 
likely the source of conflict than religion, politics or philosophy.  
Setting up an us versus them and then ascribing all the evils of the world 
to those nasty old them is the cause of war, since it justifies treating 
other human beings, their cultures and their very existances as less than 
acceptably human.

Shana Tova

Phil Nisbet

>From: Tbertruss at aol.com
>To: pcnisbet1 at hotmail.com
>CC: vision2020 at moscow.com
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Earmark and intial comments on Ralph's Religion 
>and morality
>Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 04:36:35 EDT
>
>
>Phil et. al.
>
>I now read that chasuk at gmail.com did address the concept of "argument ad
>hominem" in regard to your exchange with him/her over Mr. Paul's religious 
>harm
>thesis, though I still do not know for sure whether that Latin phrase is 
>the
>phrase that was sought.
>
>Hitler and David Duke are extreme examples of individuals who so 
>consistently
>expressed a certain point of view, that to insist that we reargue all the
>facts and logic to demonstrate the errors in their thinking, does seem 
>silly.
>
>Nonetheless, given a specific argument they made, it is still worth
>demonstrating how their arguments are in error either in fact or logic, and 
>not just to
>label and dismiss them as crazy racists or bigots.  It is important that 
>the
>errors in their thinking be reexamined, based on standards of truth 
>revealing
>that we all should follow and continue to insist upon, so that why what 
>they
>think is so wrong is clearly before people's minds, so that others who 
>think as
>they do, who may be advocating similar ideologies under more clever 
>deceptive
>guises, can again be refuted based on fact and logic.
>
>Sometimes a person who has a justly earned bad reputation just might have a
>valid argument, a change of heart or thinking that departs from their
>reputation, that will be grossly misunderstood and/or ignored if said 
>person is quickly
>labeled and stereotyped.
>
>And sometimes from the beginning, some people are stereotyped and labeled 
>in
>a manner that is inaccurate or unfair to who they are as a human being.
>
>This happens every day of the week.
>
>If possible and practical, I'd rather have a sound fact and logic based
>argument to refute any thesis that I disagreed with, rather than just 
>declaring
>what someone is saying to be of no value or obviously false based on 
>reputation,
>stereotypes or labeling.
>
>Then again, being a very emotional human being, I often do not rise to this
>high standard of truth seeking.  But at least the standard is there, full 
>of
>all the vexing and complex and seemingly insolvable problems with seeking 
>Truth.
>
>
>Ted Moffett

_________________________________________________________________
Don’t just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search! 
http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/