[Grovenet] Genesis 4:9

[Gary Duncan-Gates]

Hi, folks,

Been lurking here awhile, and just now felt compelled to comment.  I want to thank Carol for making the most lucid political comment I've ever read on Grovenet.  A lot of people on this forum cling to the liberal ideology because of its theoretical tolerance and compassion, and because they believe conservatives to be "fascists".  Yet opposition viewpoints are dismissed out of hand by these same people, and proponents of these viewpoints are categorized as racists, or warmongers, or biblethumpers, or at the least, ignorant.  Because they have a different point of view, or seek a different solution to the troubles we all must deal with, they are wrong or stupid.  

Doesn't match my definition of "tolerance".

Gary "Not affiliated with any party or religion" Duncan-Gates



----- Original Message ----
From: Carol Morgan <camorgan at stanfordalumni.org>
To: Forest Grove local interests list <grovenet at rdrop.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 6, 2008 8:26:22 PM
Subject: Re: [Grovenet] Genesis 4:9





Interesting that so many people have jumped in on this, I don't comment a lot on this thread because I seem  to be able to greatly inflame issues with my comments, though I don't mean to at all. Ironically all I am doing (intentionally, anyway) is attempting to question whether it is a good idea or even possible to make the judgments like those that were made about any group of people based on their political philosophy or voting history. 
For the most part, I tend to see here on this thread views about other people (conservatives, mainly) that don't stop at the mere political even though that is all that those comments that they make are based on.  And many of the things that are said about conservatives here are fairly sweeping and many of those are fairly uncharitable, to say the least.  Or I wouldn't be comfortable making judgments about whether a large group of people were living commandments of any kind, anyway. In fact, are there any conservatives on this thread that accuse liberals of not living morally in any way? If they do, I haven't seen that. It is pretty dangerous and unpalatable to do that these days, at least no one puts up with hearing it from the right. 
More generally it is not very appropriate to link politics with morality at all in my opinion. I don't feel I can judge someone's CHARACTER based on how they vote. I think that all I can say about people that disagree about my politics is simply that (that I disagree with them). And no more.  Anything else than political disagreements I think that I would need to know the person better. Sweeping generalizations are not usually encouraged, particularly by people who tend to not like the label "conservative." So I think it is interesting to note who it is that usually characterizes the other group in these kinds of ways. 
Even if it isn't encouraged about other groups, I read opinions on this thread that don't seem at all hesitant to on a regular basis express very pejorative statements like "conservatives are selfish, snooty, uneducated, hypocritical, bigoted (note who is making the generalizations and who is not, though) etc."  
Those things are at least to ME  fairly serious charges to make about people just on the basis of their political philosophy. I would feel that there was a fairly large chance that not only was I wrong myself, (who knows stranger things have happened, even though most of us don't leave room for the possibility), that even if I were right, that other people could vote differently than me and still have very good motives for doing that, or even in fact the same motives. As I said before, it is possible that we all think that we are saving the world, (very few would say things like "I am trying to love God but the heck with loving my neighbor) and it is only how to do it that we disagree about. 
I went back to the original scriptural exegesis comment about being our brother's keeper because I wondered whether it had just hit me the wrong way. I got the feeling that the person that said saying "I am not my brother's keeper" could be the RNC slogan was really intending that as an insult, and I get the insult, and would disagree with I think what the overall point is that it is trying to make, of course, being a conservative and very strongly objecting to the notion that I never want to do anything that is good for others. But on the other hand, I think the misunderstanding could be smaller than it seems. 
I think that even after everything that has been said about this particular scripture, I still am encouraging others to see the charity in saying that you aren't someone's keeper. Because after all - would  anyone here want Cain for a keeper?  I think that if faced with having Cain take care of me or NOT take care of take care of me, I think the choice would be obvious. Cain would be bad to have for a brother much less a keeper, and we could generalize about the disadvantages of anyone that we don't like being our keepers, and then generalize FURTHER about anyone at ALL being our keepers. 
The reason for this (there are many) that I said before is that I think that it is much preferable to take care of myself, if given the opportunity, which I think that if unhindered by restrictive and centralized economic systems, I clearly have. 
Another of the reasons for this is that we all have very different values.  Politically, many people often get into trouble because when people get into "caring for others" it often implies imposing upon them values we don't share. People tend to run into those disagreements fairly quickly in situations where people use political influence on others. 
Most of us are very grateful that about four or five hundred years ago it started occurring to someone that maybe we should separate religion and politics.  Maybe we shouldn't attempt to have someone live according to what we personally believe.  
I don't think that any of us want another person's religion made into law. And so as far as the "two great commandments," I really don't think that I am trying to do either one more than anyone else is. I wouldn't claim to be, anyway. When I vote I really don't claim to have some sort of channel into what God wants.  I just try to use whatever brain I have been given to just do what makes sense. I am assuming that even if I disagree with what other people decide when they are trying to do this, that they are attempting do do this also. 
And I think that it is a very good idea to try to separate religion from politics. Most people would agree, though not with the same terms about what that means. I got into a discussion about politics when I was travelling in Europe lately.  It seemed that he was saying that he didn't like capitalism because it encouraged greed. 
I hear this a lot, that capitalism=consumerism.  I really don't think that it encourages greed any more than any other political system.  It is just that capitalism seems to value freedom above all else (at least my personal brand of it, which leaves out morality like right to life stuff because I really do believe in not legislating morality of any kind).  
And when we give people freedom it is very likely that we won't like the things that they do with it. People will display values that are very different from our own.  But even though that happens and it is very distasteful, would greed be a vice that we are choosing to legislate against now?  I really don't think that is a good idea. Many people have over the years thought it was OK to legislate issues of sexual morality because they thought that those "sins" were particularly egregious. Largely those people have been convinced not to do that, at least not nearly to the degree that they used to be. 
Of course I am not personally going to like things that other people do with their freedom if they have it. I won't like the obnoxious houses they build or think that they should go see strippers or whatever. And I am not going to like all of the things they do with their money.  But I think as a society in the last few generations we have come to the conclusion that it is much better to give someone those kinds of decisions to make themselves rather than display some kind of hubris that we know better about how to live their lives than they do.  
Especially since the jury is still out about most of the big questions in life and in politics.  Unlike assumptions that other people have made about ME based on how I vote, I will try to assume that everyone is trying to live all of the commandments that they happen to believe in, if any.  I just happen to feel that whatever those commandments are aren't supposed to be decided on in the voting booth. And I give someone else the right to believe that there are not only different commandments, there are different ways do live them. 
As I stated before, we all think that we are trying to do not only the best thing for ourselves, God and others.  I very strongly disagree that any conservative would say that they are only trying to love God. They would probably claim that they are following the second commandment as much as anyone else is, just like I am sure that democrats would not want conservatives to say that they aren't living the first one. 
The way I sum it up is that to be charitable about each other, we should perhaps try very hard to assume that everyone else has the same good motives as we do, they might just differ on how to accomplish them. 
  
And because I don't happen to resent it when someone else is wealthier. 
Received: 01:42 PM PDT, 09/04/2008 
From: David Morelli <jo.david at verizon.net> 
To: grovenet <grovenet at rdrop.com> 
Subject: [Grovenet] Genesis 4:9 


"And the LORD said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, 
I know not: Am I my brother's keeper?" 

Sometimes I wonder if "I am NOT my brother's keeper" is the campaign 
slogan for Reagan conservatives. 



The greatest commandment is to love the Lord with your whole heart 
and to love your neighbor as yourself. 

The Republicans claim to be seriously working on part one. The 
Democrats claim that they are working on part two. 

Sometimes it looks like two sides of the same coin. When it is 
flipped we get one side or the other. 

Problem is, it isn't two different commandments, it is one. We are 
not supposed to just follow religion and we are not supposed to just 
push social policy. While either may be better than selfish self 
interest, I would guess that a Christian should be doing both. 

David 



_______________________________________________ 
GroveNet mailing list 
GroveNet at rdrop.com 
http://www.rdrop.com/mailman/listinfo/grovenet 





________________________________