[RC] The Basis of Civil Law
Avesland at aol.com
Avesland at aol.com
Fri May 20 03:13:08 EDT 2005
Chris :
It has been 20 years since I lived in Hawaii. My guess is that you are
right , that things have changed. At that, even in the 80s it was a good idea
to pick your spots if you wanted paradise. At least this was the situation
in metro Honolulu and even a few other parts of Oahu. The other islands
that I knew were Maui, fairly well, and, only a couple of weeks there, Kuwai.
Maui was and presumably still is mostly small towns, hence a different
sort of environment. Will say that I appreciated the custom of young
women sometimes sun bathing on the beaches topless. That sort of thing
was possible on Maui with little danger. If a young lady tried it on Oahu
no telling what might happen.
Anyway, about 10 Commandments, there is a very near equivalent in
the 4 Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path in Buddhism. Easy to
find; just go to any basic book about Buddhism and it should be either
in chapter 1 or else no worse than chapter 2 or 3. Not identical to the
Biblical list but close. And at least as I see it, if "they" are missing
a couple of items, "we" are missing a couple of their good teachings.
The story is a bit less obvious re : Hinduism and Zoroastrianism and
some others , but scholars have made the point, it is not original with me,
that a semblance of the commandments can easily enough be assembled
from various text material in those religions; they just never thought
to pull it all together in a single list. To go really far back you can get
something similar to the book of Leviticus, plus some of the commandments,
in the Code of Hammurabi and other Mesopotamian law codes. Think
that the Egyptian "Negative Confession," -I did not kill, I did not steal,
I did not this and not that, also pretty much fills the bill.
Hope this is a help.
Billy
In a message dated 5/19/2005 10:03:32 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cph at 2chahn.com writes:
Billy,
I agree completely that Carter squandered most of his goodwill. Too bad.
He still did get a Nobel Peace Prize.
You have given me a new place to examine… Singapore. I had no idea that
something like a moral plurality might me emerging there. Hawaii is a good
example of multi-culturalism, but I am not so sure about the moral part. The
local gangs on “ice” have gone awry. My daughter recently graduated from UH.
There are large areas on Hawaii that this adventurous white girl would not
venture, and she was happy to ride a bus by herself for three days through
Chile to Peru when she was a teenager.
I am still wondering if there is a ten commandments equivalent in most major
religions. Do you have any ready knowledge about this?
Chris
____________________________________
From: Centroids-bounces at radicalcentrism.com
[mailto:Centroids-bounces at radicalcentrism.com] On Behalf Of Avesland at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 1:23 PM
To: Centroids at radicalcentrism.com
Cc: Avesland at AOL..com
Subject: Re: [RC] The Basis of Civil Law
Chris :
What you said about Jimmy Carter struck a chord. I remember well
being influenced by his moral leadership. In the morals department
(Habitat for Humanity, etc) he still sets a moral example.
HOWEVER (upper case for emphasis) he was (and is) so utterly naive
about faith (and much else) that his administration was largely a dismal
failure. Seldom has anyone squandered so much good will with nothing
to show for it.
Congruent situation re:George W. At least Bush II has some things right.
But his faults, which certainly are obvious to someone who once was a
dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and which are obvious to today's Democrats,
sail right past most GOP stalwarts of Evangelical persuasion . Why ?
For the simple reason that "he is one of us." Thus he has no faults
since no-one wants to see them for what they are.
All of which is generalization, even overgeneralization, but you may
get the point. The "right faith" is not nearly enough to create moral
consensus in a pluralistic society. But who do we turn to for at least
an approximate example of someone who can be taken as a model ?
At the moment who most comes to mind isn't an American and he isn't
as democratic (generic) as I would like, but otherwise he certainly is
instructive. Hope the spelling is close : Lee Kuan Yee of Singapore.
The only places on earth where there are functioning multi-ethnic systems
AND
where no religion is more than a plurality, are, to the best of my
knowledge,
Singapore, Hawaii, and Trinidad. I know little about Trinidad, however,
so my comments about that country may not mean too much. About Hawaii,
where I once lived, and Singapore, which is sort of a poli-sci "hobby" of
mine, more can be said.
Anyway, whenever possible I try to think in terms of models that actually
work. California ,ay well become the first large scale example of the same
phenomenon, however, perhaps by 2020 or 2040. All of which says that
when you have got to make pluralism work at least it is possible.
I heard Yee interviewed on Charlie Rose some time ago and was very
impressed. The man not only is highly moral but he is politically astute.
He is an intellectual, at least as I interpret things, in the tradition of
Teddy Roosevelt. Broad sweep of knowledge, much of it at an expert
level. But who on the political horizon can we see in America ? At this
point in time, no-one, most unfortunately.
That is where Radical Centrism comes in. Hopefully come is. We shall see.
Billy
In a message dated 5/19/2005 7:31:39 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,
cph at 2chahn.com writes:
Billy,
You present a very interesting and compelling dilemma. The benefits of a
theocracy are clear if the theology is not “from the dark side of the moon”,
and leadership of the society is true to the moral direction of the religion
(not corrupted by power and human frailties).
I have always been fascinated by the Amana colony, the Amish, and the others
you mentioned, but I was personally turned off by the fairly strict quasi
theocracy of my childhood in a bible belt of Michigan. In retrospect I realize
that the Christian moral principals were perfect, but the execution by the
church and community leaders was not perfect.
How do we get the broad-based moral principals of a theocracy infused in a
broader secular society? Good question… in fact, a really good question. It
certainly won’t be through Brittany Spears videos and vulgar rap lyrics.
Billy, I am with you on this dilemma, I am stymied. There is a pervasive
Christian culture in the farming area where I live in California’s Central
Valley. In this region there are lots of Christian radio stations.
Unfortunately, these media outlets will get only to selective audiences (same for rap).
I think back through our recent US presidents. Jimmy Carter comes to mind
as a person with a moral presence that could help unite a bigger society, but
he was a one-termer.
Can a multi-religion coalition work? Probably not. As you mention the
theologies of different religions are miles apart. There are generally common
moral guidelines that might be in common such as the prohibition against
murder and theft. I would like your analysis of the 10 commandments from a
comparative religion standpoint. Could the Ten Commandments equivalents in
different religions be the common ground?
Chris
____________________________________
From: Centroids-bounces at radicalcentrism.com
[mailto:Centroids-bounces at radicalcentrism.com] On Behalf Of Avesland at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 6:13 AM
To: Centroids at radicalcentrism.com
Cc: Avesland at AOL..com
Subject: Re: [RC] The Basis of Civil Law
Ernie :
It is about time for me to return to the world. Have been very busy lately
as you know. but I wanted to reply to your most recent posts.
First, as much as I am democratic (in the generic sense) maybe we
should allow for types of theocracy that are benign. Clearly Calvin's
Geneva is not in this category, nor Spain during the Inquisition. But
there are other models. Through them we might better understand
both some of the strengths and weaknesses of secular democracy.
To be sure theocracy is not a subject that I have researched in depth.
But a few lessons from history (somehow I am hard pressed to think of
lessons from physics) come to mind.
William Penn's colony that became Pennsylvania is one example. It was
approximately democratic as well as being a religious entity, in that case
ruled by the Quakers. Or we might think of Tolstoy's Christian anarchist
community where, at least I have been led to believe, "law" was the Gospel
and there was no other authority -although surely some people were natural
leaders whom others followed of their own free will. Or take Amana in
Iowa, from which we get the Amana Corporation -after the group's
business ventures were capitalized. But originally Amana was a theocracy
of like minded believers who "went along with the program" willingly
since they all had a voice in what was decided. Also, precisely because
of faith that was deeply held, their leadership could essentially be
trusted.
There also are a few non-Christian examples. Perhaps you know more
than I do about one in India, Auroville near Pondicherry. But ,
historically,
there was a theocratic Buddhist era in Japan, as well, in which the country
was ruled as a "Buddha Land." A survival of that time lives on in the
now fairly small Buddhist sect known as Kegon-shu.
There have also been non-Christian theocracies of the "Geneva" type,
featuring authoritarian rule, but let us set those aside as bad examples
for obvious reasons. What can we learn from the good examples ?
This kind of question is important today because we do not have a
moral consensus in America and we are worse off because of it. In a
theocracy there is no problem about moral consensus by definition
even if there may be abuse of authority in cases.
Just how do we rebuild a moral consensus ?
It is not going to happen through conversion to some one religion even
if, for sure in America, there must necessarily be a major role for
Christian example. But how can everything needed be made to work
given religious plurality that can be expected to become even more
normative than is already the case ? That is, even if there are further gains
for Christians this does not translate into unanimity, does it ?
And what about places like Hawaii and California where non-Christians
either are a plurality or at least a large part of the social landscape ?
We had a moral consensus in America precisely because of religion,
however, and so we cannot afford to overlook this factor.
For the moment I am stymied. Personally there is no dilemma. There
are religions that share so many moral commonalities that they can be
considered to be members of a "family of faiths." But, alas, the
theological premises of these faiths may be miles apart. For in this moral
family are Christians as well as Hindus, Buddhists, Zoroastrians, Jews,
and Baha'is, for instance. Metaphysically they live in different parts of
the Universe. Meanwhile, although the critique does not apply to some
percentage
of Muslims, there is Islam with its monotheist theology but with a moral
system that is on the dark side of the Moon, or somewhere beyond Pluto.
All of this for your or anyone else's consideration.
These considerations can also be connected to the concept of progress.
But is progress, as you maintained, a matter of communication,
understanding, and greater clarity about "alternative viewpoints" ?
To be sure we need all of that. But, for one, I define progress in
different terms, partly very materialistically. There is little chance
that people will perceive progress unless they perceive real world
benefits such as an enhanced standard of living, after all. And there
is progress that is technological -granted that technology can also
bring negative effects. In such cases the factors you brought up
are secondary despite the fact that I agree completely that those
things are good, appropriate and valuable.
Another "for your consideration." Perhaps we might discuss these
issues at greater depth once we become clearer about the meaning
of terms.
Regards
Billy
In a message dated 5/17/2005 3:54:21 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
drernie at radicalcentrism.org writes:
Hi Billy,
I actually more-or-less agree with your basic argument, particularly as
expressed in this paragraph:
On May 13, 2005, at 7:53 PM, _Avesland at aol.com_ (mailto:Avesland at aol.com)
wrote:
An appeal to "higher authority" makes good sense in a pluralistic
society only to the extent that this appeal is ecumenical. My own
view is that all actual truths in any religious tradition can be verified
scientifically -through the behavioral sciences; not talking about
putting a moral principle in a centrifuge or an ethical objective
in a petri dish. My "authority" for this is Romans 1:19-20. Or my
authority for this has nothing to do with Romans and is, instead,
a conclusion reached through research in sociology. Same result.
Put another way, I may agree with the author that rights and morals are
*ontologically* derived from a Creator, but that doesn't mean they are
*epistemologically* discovered and validated *solely* by consulting a particular
religious tradition. Which I think is equivalent to what you said.
That has always been my problem with theocracy in its various forms: it
always devolves into "rule by priests" rather than "rule by God." Somebody has
to decide i) what God said, ii) how to interpret it, and iiI) how to apply it
-- which ultimately means priests, in one form or another, who (if left
unchecked) inevitably cloak their fallen (even if well-meaning) human reasoning
in divine authority
And while I have great faith in God, I have very little trust in priests
(whether secular or religious, come to think of it) -- at least as a class,
though to be sure I hold certain priest-type individuals in extremely high
regard.
My view of the role of religion in democracy is that it inspires individuals
to do the hard work of research, communication, and trust-building in order
to "persuade" the broader population to accept healthy laws. Not to impose
them because they agree with us in every particular (assuming we could even
agree among ourselves :-), much less accept our authority, but because we've
demonstrated its truth within paradigms they recognize.
-- Ernie P.
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: Centroids at radicalcentrism.com
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at
http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: Centroids at radicalcentrism.com
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at
http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
_______________________________________________
Centroids mailing list: Centroids at radicalcentrism.com
http://radicalcentrism.com/mailman/listinfo/centroids_radicalcentrism.com
Archives at
http://radicalcentrism.org/pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/centroids_radicalcentrism.com/attachments/20050520/d1d207eb/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Centroids
mailing list