Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The Wrong Side of Morality
Many of my friends are very happy about Friday’s US Supreme Court decision. While I have mixed feelings, I realize that many of them are driven by great love and respect for other people, their dignity, their equality, and their love. And perhaps they’re right to celebrate the Supreme Court’s expansion of the definition of marriage.
A small minority of them, however, undermine their claim to be driven by love and respect when they lash out in hatred, anger, and derisive mockery at Supreme Court justices, or at others who do not share their views. If you write or like a post that calls Justice Thomas a highly unpleasant expletive, for example, the emotion driving you does not seem to be love, and the values guiding you do not seem to be respect or tolerance.
The moral line dividing us does not run between those who think that marriage and dignity are Constitutionally-protected rights and those that think these are issues for Congress or state legislatures. It does not run between those who think the opposite-gender clause must remain in the definition of marriage and those who think it must be removed. The moral line runs within us, between those parts of us that are driven by anger, bigotry, intolerance, and hate, and those that are driven by love and respect for other people, their orientations, and their opinions.
Wherever one stands on the issue, the part of us that wants to mock or condemn the justices who disagreed with us on Friday is probably on the wrong side of that moral line. We should worry less about being on the wrong side of history than about being on the wrong side of morality and human decency.
Published in General
As long as we’re using them historically correctly.
Well, it’s kind of a slanderous thing to say about Ricochet men.
((As long as we’re using them historically correctly.)))
Nope, check out its usage. Personal attack against a member.
Sure. And as long as we do not personalize, as Herbert notes.
Careful. Herb hasn’t gotten his prog love on yet, and he’s a-lawyerin up!
Without getting into the weeds of a theological, historical and semantic discussion, which I’m not qualified to do on the one hand, and while slightly more qualified on the other, I’m just not up for it, this is why I have always preferred the triumvirate of ‘faith, hope and charity,’ as distinct from ‘faith, hope and love.’
Because the word ‘love’ just has too much emotional baggage, and discussions of this sort usually end up with one or both sides sounding like the screaming girl in the video clip.
I can feel charitable towards many people that I do not ‘love,’ and I believe it’s possible (and even required) to think, and act, in Christian charity towards them (if I’m a Christian) even if I do not like what they say or what they do, whether it directly affects me or not. But I do not ‘love’ these people. It’s not personal.
Why is it no longer acceptable to make that sort of distinction, or to have a viewpoint like that?
pleeeaaaasssaaa no screaming girl video clips! (-:
I’m alright with saying that I love people even when I don’t like what they say and do necessarily. I’m sure there’s plenty of parents/children/siblings who love their kin even when they drive each other up the wall. That stated, I’m with you in liking that the King James Bible makes a distinction between “charity” and “love.”
But I’m sick of this assumption that the belief that sex-distinction is essential to marriage=hating gay people.
Red Feline
Ball Diamond Ball:Hey, thanks for calling me hateful, too.Check your progressive tolerance.
I’m not calling you hateful. In fact, I am sure you are a very nice person.
What I am calling hateful is the attitudes towards gays that too many people express. Doesn’t it seem amazing that some people can’t see how hateful those attitudes are, and how unkind the person who expresses them appears?
—
You must think we’re all very stupid.
I don’t think that Red thinks that we’re stupid. I think that Red really does find the attitude upsetting, but she knew that Mrs. of England and I were SoCons when we met up with her and Indaba in 2013, and she was exceptionally warm and friendly to us, really helping to make the trip a great one.
There are some on our side who have strong negative feelings about sodomy, but not about gays. I don’t see why Red’s position is any more unreasonable than that.
While I’m sure she is just as nice a person as I am, I see her repeated pronouncements as much a Wax Moth problem as she sees my stubborn refusal to upend my views as bigotry.
Soustelle: Mon President, I am getting a lot of criticism from my friends about our Algerian policy.
De Gaulle: Change your friends.
Thanks Lily. I think all communities have a loud and sometimes bigoted fascist and trollish minority. Many members of the #LoveWins pro-tolerance and diversity community are not very loving, tolerant or pro-diversity. BTW IMO many Christians are not very christian. But at least we’re not physically bashing each other’s heads in, so we’ve made some progress as a society. (We Jews don’t have this nomenclature problem because the negative connotations already built in to “Jew.” Saying “many Jews are not very Jewish” would be saying that they’re very calm and non-argumentative. But I digress.
“Do you think the gay community …” I think our problem isn’t the gay community, it’s the neo-Marxist fascists who have found the SSM issue a useful cudgel. “Will they charge on to destroy …” Some will. I hope the good people on both sides can stop them.
I think this is what’s taking place since all gays I know as friends and acquaintances seem to be reasonable. Anyone know if the facts with regard to this have been examined, maybe by studying a large cross-section of major urban areas?
I don’t care about that. I just don’t want to lose a useful term. I have been around some thin-skinned people who got all hysterical when I used the term once. I had to explain its historical usage. Still didn’t help.
(( I had to explain its historical usage. Still didn’t help.))
So if we are discussing something and I say you are being a useful idiot. Ok?
The point is, it’s a useful term, and I’m not going to give it up just because some don’t understand how it’s being used.
Why are you being antagonistic?
Well Drew, Gary is a decent fellow, and Herb here is on the other side anyway.
You do realize he was addressing both sides, right?
I am not a lawyer, James, and am looking at the issue of SSM from an ordinary human, and emotional, point of view. I have had many gay friends and employees, and I can see it from their side. To me, the issue is not a moral one, and I wouldn’t want to say to my gay friends that they couldn’t marry.
I’m interested in the legal side. It is so important because of the difference it will make to my friends to be considered “normal” and part of the society.
In view of the international human rights, and how these reflect the thinking of so many people, it really would have been surprising if the US Supreme Court had voted against SSM. They would have been violating human rights in the eyes of so many people, especially of the international community.
I had to look up Wikipedia to learn about this case. I find it hard to believe that it was only in 2003 that the United States changed the laws regarding sodomy. Surely that is not the case.
Once again, to me this is not a moral issue. I have always found it distasteful, to say the least, that any government should have the right to intrude into an individual’s personal life to dictate behaviour between two consenting adults as criminal. Britain changed that law in 1967. I remember that personally because a close friend of mine who happened to be gay, could then return from Africa to his home, England.
I really don’t care how many judges were for or against, I really only care about the outcome. For my gay friends, this is so important, as they are free from what I too consider unacceptable laws. I rejoice with them.
I gather that you are a lawyer, BDB. I would expect you to follow the dictates of the law in the exercise of your profession. I have no doubt that you are a person with integrity. In fact, if we met I probably would like you. :)
Don’t you think that the black man I was quoting was saying that it is exceedingly hurtful to be looked on disparagingly by society. He had found that, in his mixed-race marriage. He could empathise with gays in what they must be feeling. In that sense, he was comparing mixed-race marriages to those of gays.
I could understand what he was saying, and sympathise with him.
I ought not to have mentioned Indaba and her opinions. That is her business, not mine. I shouldn’t have tried to be funny.
Talk about your non-sequitur. :)
We would have to define the word “stupid”, BDB! :)
Dear Red Feline:
Lets have this discussion again in 10 years when the ‘tolerant’ left and SSM supporters have made their full assault on religions across the country.When the true nature of being ‘made to care’ will be enforced.
Then your message of tolerance will ring with its real truth. Our profound ignorance will be writ large and we will be told to bow before the all knowing state because belief is just a construct that must be taken down in the ever evolving nature of ‘tolerance’.
And YES, we all know the kind and noble religious gay couple, please lay that canard to rest. We are discussing individual rights which don’t seem to apply to anyone EXCEPT the supporters of SSM.
Thanks, James, it was such a pleasure meeting you and Mrs. of England!
I keep saying that it is the attitude towards gays and SSM that I find upsetting, not the person who holds the attitude. I separate the idea from the person. There are all sorts of reasons why people think as they do, and they are entitled to their own belief system. They are not stupid, BDB, because they no doubt have a reason for why they believe what they do.
I believe differently on this issue because I don’t see it as a moral issue. I see it as a human issue, and I don’t like seeing people suffering from the attitudes of others. I believe that is cruel. I don’t want to be associated with such attitudes, simply because I am a conservative.
Yes, that is exactly what I understood him to say. And that is exactly what I’m saying is wrong.
My stomach hurts when I overeat. Starving children in Africa have pains in their stomachs too. In his mind we must have a lot in common.
For some reason, you make me laugh, BDB. I think we could have a fun time together. Probably that is because you speak your truth, and I can speak mine. I always find that amusing. So few people can do that. :)
I’ve just looked up Wax Moth as I hate to admit I had never heard of them. Terrible problem for bee hives owners. Also, no doubt, for the bees themselves. I get your point!
I would have to know on what you are basing your opinions regarding SSM before I would think of calling you a bigot. I didn’t call you a bigot. Actually, I wouldn’t call anyone a bigot on Ricochet as wouldn’t that go against the CofC? In fact, now that I think of it, I would only talk about attitudes as being bigoted, not the person. So, no, BDB, I wouldn’t call you a bigot or bigoted.