Tweet
At this time I would like to say that I am proud to know 1.5. He posted on a thread on another site with such honest, passion, and intelligence, that he had to catch flak.
The thread was removed because of host stupidity it is no more but I, knowing how they are, saved it while it was going along. I sincerely thank 1.5for his efforts and say that is concluding posts were excellent and don't deserve to be trashed but rather saved here. Here is basically the whole thread so that 1.5 can be read in context. It won't be hard to see who he is:
Sobeit9
7/11/2007 5:31 PM 1 out of 16
Dear Reader
This is a tough one. Probably the biggest eye opening unfortunate experiences I've ever had on the internet is when I introduced the question of denial and or non-recognition of the Armenian Genocide to Beliefnet. It is a current issue since it is being debated in our Govt.
As of now Turkey, Israel, and the United States are against recognition. The only way that the whole question of genocide and the Armenian Genocide in particular can be discussed on Beliefnet without being shouted down and archived or deleted is through a dialogue group which I just initiated and scheduled to begin 7/30. Naturally being part Armenian and having family lost to the Genocide, the question is of concern for me on several levels. A description of the aim of the group can be found here: CLICK
My experience so far has taught me how easy it is to abandon morality or the moral good in favor of politics for some and yet seen as completely reprehensible by others. Consider how these two reactions are being debated in Florida now. CLICK
Consider how the moral Jew stands up against the political Jew in this matter of Christian persecution or the Armenian Genocide. CLICK
Consider how sleazy even President Bush broke his promise and has selected politics over the moral good. CLICK
The whole point which has now firmly sunk into my thick skull is that secular religion makes it so easy to say one thing and do another. We speak of morality but refuse to stand up for it.
Naturally I invite those wishing to discuss genocide in depth to join the dialogue group 7/30, but for now, I'd like you to tell me how you juggle the moral good with political and selfish concerns. Would you stand up for your neighbor in support of the moral good even if it were not politically correct to do so? Would you want your country to do so?
tfvespasianus
7/11/2007 5:52 PM 2 out of 16
Sobeit,
These is a good topic for discussion, but slightly off-topic for this forum. What you've written is very eloquent and compelling.
To me, what is central to ethics is the idea that when we ponder moral questions, we examine them as disinterested parties. That is, with respect to the question of the Armenian Genocide, it was wrong and atrocity apart from whether I am an Armenian. It ought to be considered as a genocide (with all that entails) independent of political considerations. The greater good is the bedrock principle of dispassionate consideration of the facts of the matter.
However, while I consider this to be a foundational principle of ethics (and thus tangentially related to politics/international relations), it is by no means universally accepted. For example, 'Political Realism' accepts that states must act in their self-interest regardless of 'fairness' and that actions are predicated on the relative amounts of power of the states involved. It is somewhat similar politically to Ethical Egoism or 'Objectivism'. Despite how depraved these systems of thought are to me, they are fairly influential schools of thought. So, how do I answer your questions with respect to personal behavior? I try my best to have 'walk to the walk' and at the same time engage people with opposite notions in market place of ideas.
Sobeit9
7/11/2007 6:53 PM 3 out of 16
tfv
So it seems that there is moral relativism based on political condideration. Of course this is what is happening. This illustrates the myth of secular morality. It seems that there will be moral people and those that are purely political as witnessed in this complete split in Judaism over this.
It makes me wonder if I could have been a Shindler and rescued people at the risk of my death because it was the moral thing to do. People in the past have said "screw the jews" and now they say "screw the Armenians"
So many times I've read it is imperative that we remember genocides for what they are or they will repeat which is of course true. But then a little politics turns it into a do what.
Could a real religious person turn his back on his moral teaching or is this hypocrisy only a delight of secularism? There are some tough truths to face about ourselves. What would we do? Would we stand up for our neighbor?
clyde5001
7/11/2007 8:52 PM 4 out of 16
Tf,
He keeps trying to bring this up on Judaism Debate (4 threads so far) and they keep getting deleted.
I guess he's trying here now.
BetteTheRedde
7/11/2007 9:00 PM 5 out of 16
I think, sobeit, that you're claiming that the truly diplomatic cannot be moral as well.
But if the final result of diplomacy is peace, and saved lives, and the final result of being morally 'right' is war and death?
Sobeit9
7/11/2007 9:41 PM 6 out of 16
Bette
I simply asked you
I'd like you to tell me how you juggle the moral good with political and selfish concerns. Would you stand up for your neighbor in support of the moral good even if it were not politically correct to do so? Would you want your country to do so?
You replied"
I think, sobeit, that you're claiming that the truly diplomatic cannot be moral as well.
No, I am not claiming this. Are you telling me this is how you are and that you would be unable to be both moral and diplomatic at the same time?
But if the final result of diplomacy is peace, and saved lives, and the final result of being morally 'right' is war and death?
Is this the truth learned from the Jewish Holocaust? It was denied and is now being denied by Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as "a myth." Is it your position that if people become irate enough in their denial of the Jewish Holocaust and make threats that we should pacify them, look the other way, and adopt a political position of non-recognition of the Holocaust in our belief that it would save lives?
BetteTheRedde
7/11/2007 10:06 PM 7 out of 16
No, 'we' continue to recognize the Holocaust, and those who wish not to recognize it can do so. If 'they' go as far in their Holocaust (or whatever) denial as hate speech, there are provisions for that in Canada. In the U.S., I believe that the right to speak hate is protected as freedom of speech.
And, no, I actually think that there are situations when it would not be possible for me to be both true to my personal moral code and diplomatically effective. Since I am a pacifist, any declaration of war, indeed any action (or lack thereof) that resulted in a loss of lifel, would be against my personal moral code.
Sobeit9
7/11/2007 10:26 PM 8 out of 16
Bette
Why do you mean by "WE?" If you mean the United States that doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide, would it be OK with you if bills were passed in congress declaring a change in official position on the Holocaust and now we are sympathetic but no longer believe it to be a Holocaust in respect to the beliefs of Iran.
Would you stand with the Jews in defiance and say this is wrong or would you just shrug and say "politics." rules.
Moonstarwoman
7/11/2007 11:22 PM 9 out of 16
This thread was moved here from Christianity Debate, were it is more on topic.
moonstarwoman
Christianity Debate Host
CharikIeia
7/12/2007 8:59 AM 10 out of 16
Welcome, Sobeit and all!
May I start with a question?
What is "secular religion"? Sounds like an oxymoron to me...
Sobeit9
7/12/2007 9:14 AM 11 out of 16
Char
A secular religion is a man made religion that becomes strictly a cultural influence that is usually a degeneration of a teaching that in its pure form has its concern for the quality of the inner man.
Kierkegaard for example, quite rightly saw this degredation in Christianity and named this degredation Christendom, a term I've adopted. CLICK
CharikIeia
7/13/2007 3:22 AM 12 out of 16
Thanks for explaining, Sobeit -- coming from Germany and living in the Netherlands, I know the phenomenon you speak about all too well: the societally and culturally compromised, made-convenient religion.
((As explanation: I asked because recently, I here had an exchange of opinions with our friend usama on secularism in Turkey and Egypt -- and I suspected that you viewed secularism as something that would be worshipped like a religious idol. Not so, I am happy with your explanation, our opinions seem not to differ that much here.))
You said above that Turkey, Israel and the USA "do not recognise" the genocide committed by the Osman empire against the Armenians.
Could you elaborate a bit on what it means when a state "does not recognise" a genocide? I mean, I am not even aware of the US (or any other nation on this planet) explicitly "recognising" that the sun sets in the West and rises in the East -- which does not subtract from the validity of the fact at all.
How much does it take to "not recognise"? Is silence deliberate non-recognition, or is it just silence?
In the case of Turkey, the case is clear: there is no silence, but aggresive denial of the crime by large part of the state apparatus and the population.
How did, e.g., Germany "recognise" the genocide?
Sobeit9
7/15/2007 1:08 PM 13 out of 16
Hi Charikleia
Could you elaborate a bit on what it means when a state "does not recognise" a genocide? I mean, I am not even aware of the US (or any other nation on this planet) explicitly "recognising" that the sun sets in the West and rises in the East -- which does not subtract from the validity of the fact at all.
Hopefully this can be gone into more fully in the dialogue group. But for now, I define a genocide as posted in the overview of the dialogue group: CLICK
"When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder." Simone Weil..
The most extreme form of this mindset is genocide defined as: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group..
Non-recognition or denial of a genocide means that it either did not happen or the killings were not intended as a complete destruction of a race.
How much does it take to "not recognise"? Is silence deliberate non-recognition, or is it just silence?
Bush, reflecting the political position of the U.S. does not use the word genocide but instead speaks of sympathy for the Armenians. This is deliberate non-recognition and why congressional action is being sought to make the United States officially refer to what happened the Armenian Genocide.
To some it is just silence. it is a big "who cares. if you look at the following Bnet piece and member reaction, it becomes revealing .. CLICK
IMO it is one thing to complain about "The Shame of Inaction" as it pertains to the Jewish Holocaust. it is hypocritical to be guilty of this same shame of inaction when it comes to the Armenian Genocide as pointed out in the links posted in the opening post.
Many of the member's reaction question why there is competition in suffering. That is a major theme of the dialogue. Do we stand up against genocide as an equal evil regardless of politics or personal interests, or do accept politically incorrect genocides such as the Armenian Genocide? I maintain as do others I've linked for the purpose of dialogue that non-recognition of a genocide assures that others will begin.
If this is what we want then of course classify genocides into politically correct and incorrect categories and respond to them in kind.
If not, then cut the crap, all the accusations of anti semitism, and call a spade a spade. Then perhaps we could outgrow the apparent need for cyclical appearances of genocide.
The thread was removed because of host stupidity it is no more but I, knowing how they are, saved it while it was going along. I sincerely thank 1.5for his efforts and say that is concluding posts were excellent and don't deserve to be trashed but rather saved here. Here is basically the whole thread so that 1.5 can be read in context. It won't be hard to see who he is:
Sobeit9
7/11/2007 5:31 PM 1 out of 16
Dear Reader
This is a tough one. Probably the biggest eye opening unfortunate experiences I've ever had on the internet is when I introduced the question of denial and or non-recognition of the Armenian Genocide to Beliefnet. It is a current issue since it is being debated in our Govt.
As of now Turkey, Israel, and the United States are against recognition. The only way that the whole question of genocide and the Armenian Genocide in particular can be discussed on Beliefnet without being shouted down and archived or deleted is through a dialogue group which I just initiated and scheduled to begin 7/30. Naturally being part Armenian and having family lost to the Genocide, the question is of concern for me on several levels. A description of the aim of the group can be found here: CLICK
My experience so far has taught me how easy it is to abandon morality or the moral good in favor of politics for some and yet seen as completely reprehensible by others. Consider how these two reactions are being debated in Florida now. CLICK
Consider how the moral Jew stands up against the political Jew in this matter of Christian persecution or the Armenian Genocide. CLICK
Consider how sleazy even President Bush broke his promise and has selected politics over the moral good. CLICK
The whole point which has now firmly sunk into my thick skull is that secular religion makes it so easy to say one thing and do another. We speak of morality but refuse to stand up for it.
Naturally I invite those wishing to discuss genocide in depth to join the dialogue group 7/30, but for now, I'd like you to tell me how you juggle the moral good with political and selfish concerns. Would you stand up for your neighbor in support of the moral good even if it were not politically correct to do so? Would you want your country to do so?
tfvespasianus
7/11/2007 5:52 PM 2 out of 16
Sobeit,
These is a good topic for discussion, but slightly off-topic for this forum. What you've written is very eloquent and compelling.
To me, what is central to ethics is the idea that when we ponder moral questions, we examine them as disinterested parties. That is, with respect to the question of the Armenian Genocide, it was wrong and atrocity apart from whether I am an Armenian. It ought to be considered as a genocide (with all that entails) independent of political considerations. The greater good is the bedrock principle of dispassionate consideration of the facts of the matter.
However, while I consider this to be a foundational principle of ethics (and thus tangentially related to politics/international relations), it is by no means universally accepted. For example, 'Political Realism' accepts that states must act in their self-interest regardless of 'fairness' and that actions are predicated on the relative amounts of power of the states involved. It is somewhat similar politically to Ethical Egoism or 'Objectivism'. Despite how depraved these systems of thought are to me, they are fairly influential schools of thought. So, how do I answer your questions with respect to personal behavior? I try my best to have 'walk to the walk' and at the same time engage people with opposite notions in market place of ideas.
Sobeit9
7/11/2007 6:53 PM 3 out of 16
tfv
So it seems that there is moral relativism based on political condideration. Of course this is what is happening. This illustrates the myth of secular morality. It seems that there will be moral people and those that are purely political as witnessed in this complete split in Judaism over this.
It makes me wonder if I could have been a Shindler and rescued people at the risk of my death because it was the moral thing to do. People in the past have said "screw the jews" and now they say "screw the Armenians"
So many times I've read it is imperative that we remember genocides for what they are or they will repeat which is of course true. But then a little politics turns it into a do what.
Could a real religious person turn his back on his moral teaching or is this hypocrisy only a delight of secularism? There are some tough truths to face about ourselves. What would we do? Would we stand up for our neighbor?
clyde5001
7/11/2007 8:52 PM 4 out of 16
Tf,
He keeps trying to bring this up on Judaism Debate (4 threads so far) and they keep getting deleted.
I guess he's trying here now.
BetteTheRedde
7/11/2007 9:00 PM 5 out of 16
I think, sobeit, that you're claiming that the truly diplomatic cannot be moral as well.
But if the final result of diplomacy is peace, and saved lives, and the final result of being morally 'right' is war and death?
Sobeit9
7/11/2007 9:41 PM 6 out of 16
Bette
I simply asked you
I'd like you to tell me how you juggle the moral good with political and selfish concerns. Would you stand up for your neighbor in support of the moral good even if it were not politically correct to do so? Would you want your country to do so?
You replied"
I think, sobeit, that you're claiming that the truly diplomatic cannot be moral as well.
No, I am not claiming this. Are you telling me this is how you are and that you would be unable to be both moral and diplomatic at the same time?
But if the final result of diplomacy is peace, and saved lives, and the final result of being morally 'right' is war and death?
Is this the truth learned from the Jewish Holocaust? It was denied and is now being denied by Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has described the Holocaust as "a myth." Is it your position that if people become irate enough in their denial of the Jewish Holocaust and make threats that we should pacify them, look the other way, and adopt a political position of non-recognition of the Holocaust in our belief that it would save lives?
BetteTheRedde
7/11/2007 10:06 PM 7 out of 16
No, 'we' continue to recognize the Holocaust, and those who wish not to recognize it can do so. If 'they' go as far in their Holocaust (or whatever) denial as hate speech, there are provisions for that in Canada. In the U.S., I believe that the right to speak hate is protected as freedom of speech.
And, no, I actually think that there are situations when it would not be possible for me to be both true to my personal moral code and diplomatically effective. Since I am a pacifist, any declaration of war, indeed any action (or lack thereof) that resulted in a loss of lifel, would be against my personal moral code.
Sobeit9
7/11/2007 10:26 PM 8 out of 16
Bette
Why do you mean by "WE?" If you mean the United States that doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide, would it be OK with you if bills were passed in congress declaring a change in official position on the Holocaust and now we are sympathetic but no longer believe it to be a Holocaust in respect to the beliefs of Iran.
Would you stand with the Jews in defiance and say this is wrong or would you just shrug and say "politics." rules.
Moonstarwoman
7/11/2007 11:22 PM 9 out of 16
This thread was moved here from Christianity Debate, were it is more on topic.
moonstarwoman
Christianity Debate Host
CharikIeia
7/12/2007 8:59 AM 10 out of 16
Welcome, Sobeit and all!
May I start with a question?
What is "secular religion"? Sounds like an oxymoron to me...
Sobeit9
7/12/2007 9:14 AM 11 out of 16
Char
A secular religion is a man made religion that becomes strictly a cultural influence that is usually a degeneration of a teaching that in its pure form has its concern for the quality of the inner man.
Kierkegaard for example, quite rightly saw this degredation in Christianity and named this degredation Christendom, a term I've adopted. CLICK
CharikIeia
7/13/2007 3:22 AM 12 out of 16
Thanks for explaining, Sobeit -- coming from Germany and living in the Netherlands, I know the phenomenon you speak about all too well: the societally and culturally compromised, made-convenient religion.
((As explanation: I asked because recently, I here had an exchange of opinions with our friend usama on secularism in Turkey and Egypt -- and I suspected that you viewed secularism as something that would be worshipped like a religious idol. Not so, I am happy with your explanation, our opinions seem not to differ that much here.))
You said above that Turkey, Israel and the USA "do not recognise" the genocide committed by the Osman empire against the Armenians.
Could you elaborate a bit on what it means when a state "does not recognise" a genocide? I mean, I am not even aware of the US (or any other nation on this planet) explicitly "recognising" that the sun sets in the West and rises in the East -- which does not subtract from the validity of the fact at all.
How much does it take to "not recognise"? Is silence deliberate non-recognition, or is it just silence?
In the case of Turkey, the case is clear: there is no silence, but aggresive denial of the crime by large part of the state apparatus and the population.
How did, e.g., Germany "recognise" the genocide?
Sobeit9
7/15/2007 1:08 PM 13 out of 16
Hi Charikleia
Could you elaborate a bit on what it means when a state "does not recognise" a genocide? I mean, I am not even aware of the US (or any other nation on this planet) explicitly "recognising" that the sun sets in the West and rises in the East -- which does not subtract from the validity of the fact at all.
Hopefully this can be gone into more fully in the dialogue group. But for now, I define a genocide as posted in the overview of the dialogue group: CLICK
"When once a certain class of people has been placed by the temporal and spiritual authorities outside the ranks of those whose life has value, then nothing comes more naturally to men than murder." Simone Weil..
The most extreme form of this mindset is genocide defined as: the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group..
Non-recognition or denial of a genocide means that it either did not happen or the killings were not intended as a complete destruction of a race.
How much does it take to "not recognise"? Is silence deliberate non-recognition, or is it just silence?
Bush, reflecting the political position of the U.S. does not use the word genocide but instead speaks of sympathy for the Armenians. This is deliberate non-recognition and why congressional action is being sought to make the United States officially refer to what happened the Armenian Genocide.
To some it is just silence. it is a big "who cares. if you look at the following Bnet piece and member reaction, it becomes revealing .. CLICK
IMO it is one thing to complain about "The Shame of Inaction" as it pertains to the Jewish Holocaust. it is hypocritical to be guilty of this same shame of inaction when it comes to the Armenian Genocide as pointed out in the links posted in the opening post.
Many of the member's reaction question why there is competition in suffering. That is a major theme of the dialogue. Do we stand up against genocide as an equal evil regardless of politics or personal interests, or do accept politically incorrect genocides such as the Armenian Genocide? I maintain as do others I've linked for the purpose of dialogue that non-recognition of a genocide assures that others will begin.
If this is what we want then of course classify genocides into politically correct and incorrect categories and respond to them in kind.
If not, then cut the crap, all the accusations of anti semitism, and call a spade a spade. Then perhaps we could outgrow the apparent need for cyclical appearances of genocide.
Comment