| roger.pearse@googlemail.com 2008-01-29, 6:56 pm |
| On Jan 28, 8:32=A0pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Jan 2008 12:15:02 -0800 (PST),
>
> "roger.pea...@googlemail.com" <roger.pea...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Over and over again people have been willing to use God's name to
> demand that others accept their values. =A0 They use the Bible to
> justify attitudes and evils done. =A0
They do if the bible is important in their society, I agree. But is
this the case today?
You see, I live in a society where any appeal to the bible would
automatically discredit whoever did it. Indeed the Prime Minister
said as much when he said that to talk about religion would make him
sound like a "complete nutcase".
What I see today is the politically correct demanding that people
accept their values, hate whom they hate, and accept whom they
accept. There's no biblical origin to this. So unless this is a
historical excursus, I'm not sure that I see the relevance? (Sorry)
>
> I'm in favor of "flip flopping" as we learn more and mature.
> Politicians who are unwilling to be convinced are politicians who
> won't change from wrong paths.
Maybe, but isn't the problem with the b*gg*rs that they are usually
complete tarts -- anyone's if it looks advantageous?
> Maybe being so Righteous about this generation's values isn't
> important enough to war over. =A0
I agree. But then I don't share any of this generation's values; I
didn't vote for them, don't respect them, and know that they will pass
away in a generation as all temporary values do. So undue respect for
the Selfish Generation and its mores is not something that I am
tempted to.
I do agree that people decorating purely societal values with biblical
phraseology is revolting. You see this with the current fad, climate
change -- people hunting around in the bible for stuff to justify it,
which is frankly irrelevant and unnecessary to the real (secular)
urgency behind that campaign, and evidently not what any previous
generation ever saw in it. I hate people who get all religious about
a party political programme. They're different things (which is not
to say that religious imperatives should never take a political form).
All the best,
Roger Pearse
|