>Reverend Pilch's rather extreme viewpoint of anyone who disagrees with his idea of morality as a being a "filthy whore" is indeed a microcosm of the true fundamentalist viewpoint.<
Perhaps, though this certainly is no concern of mine. As this is the first post of yours I have read, and since from my vantage point you have been unreasonable in just this one instance, I will try here to be reasonable with you, though perhaps I will soon come to consider the attempt something akin to conversing with a four footed beast.
You claim I believe “anyone who disagrees with [my] idea of morality [is] a "filthy whore"-- a statement that can by no means be supported even by an analysis of the illogic I have submitted in these forums. There are very many people who believe differently than I on certain specific moral issues, whose positions I by no means admire, who I nevertheless do not consider filthy whores. I do not consider them filthy whores because of two fundamental reasons: 1.) They arrive at their positions by reason, having to the best of their abilities examined the various premises that form the basis of their beliefs and found them each sound. The premises upon which they depend are based, to the greatest extent possible, upon philosophical soundness; not upon “feelings”, “weariness” or other such simple emotional considerations, 2.) They hold to their positions as a matter of principle, and refuse to compromise them because of convenience, changing them only after finding them in some way truly deficient.
Now mind this does not mean I will joyfully embrace anyone meeting the above criteria; but that should they do so, they will escape my thinking them filthy whores. Depending upon their positions I may yet consider them abominable wretches even should they meet the standard above. I may determine one or more of their foundational premises to be philosophically contrary to my liberty and/or existence, and believe they aim to force these premises upon me. Self annihilation is a concept I consider quite illogical, and so even if from one's vantage point my destruction should appear logical, I would be compelled to consider one an abominable wretch who by nearly any means should and must be destroyed.
At this juncture a question arises. Is it in my view possible for a person to meet the above two criteria while differing with me on moral issues to escape being considered an abominable wretch? I think it quite possible, as there are many people who have done nearly all these things and yet who I quite admire. Indeed, one of my most excellent friends is an atheist, a holdover from the days of my belief in the atheist religion. I say they have done NEARLY all these things because they have failed to do a thing I consider most important when taking positions that are philosophically contrary to my liberty and/or existence: they have refused to purposefully force their premises upon me. In some cases they are unaware their premises philosophically contradict my existence. In other cases they are aware of the philosophical difficulty but consider it too far removed from practical life to pose any threat to me (though it seems to me their constantly pointing a gun to my head is yet a barbarous thing even if its merely a gesture of philosophy). In both cases they are loathe to force their destructive premises upon me, leaving me free not to consider them abominable wretches who must be destroyed.
So then it is not the case that I consider everyone who does not agree with my morality to be filthy whores. There are many people who disagree with my morality but who I consider unworthy of being detested.
I nevertheless have claimed to have one such person whom I quite admire (in fact I have several); and to my way of thinking being worthy of admiration requires quite a bit more than simply meeting the qualifications above. It requires meeting those qualifications and also agreeing with what I consider the basic moral principles that foster trust. While one may reject my God and the tenets that I believe flow from Him, one is not by such rejection compelled to reject what I believe are the foundational principles of civilized human relations-- principles such as honor and integrity. My friends who reject some aspects of my morality embrace other basic aspects of it such that I am able to trust them as neighbors, friends and to some extent brothers. Some of them believe, as I do, that it is of utmost importance that a man be ever faithful to his wife and children; and that when a man fails here, he is not a man to be much trusted. They believe a man should not take advantage of his position to sexually exploit a woman, and are incensed that our society merely winks at such behaviour in a president. Their having such beliefs gives me a great deal of comfort as I move amongst them. I derive this comfort because I believe these people most unlikely to harm my wife or children as Bill Clinton has harmed the wives and children of others. So then while these people do not embrace the fullness of my morality, they do embrace enough of it such that I can in some fundamental way consider them brothers.
I have no such comfort concerning the great majority of Americans. They have to me shown themselves to be generally a remarkably malleable and indecent lot; and so I have a great deal of disrespect for them. I could never have even the most fundamental trust in men who do not abhor the behaviour of Bill Clinton and who do not think his incessant lying enough to reject him as their leader. I cannot even respect such men, as they believe it acceptable to hold before themselves and their children a man who is a flagrant cheat and liar. I therefore can by no means assume them decent enough not to take advantage of my children, should my children err as they learn of this world. I could never trust them to have the basic decency not to try seducing my wife, though I trust my wife to reject their advances. I could not go to war or send my sons into war to protect the rights of such people, as they are those who too easily discard the principles for which I believe it worth risking life and limb. I call them filthy whores because they claim to embrace the principles that their leader has brazenly and repeatedly shattered, while claiming this leader worthy to lead them. They here claim to aspire to a moral ideal, while willingly and purposefully failing to uphold it, whoring themselves against their principles for their own comforts. This is something akin to claiming belief in racial equality while claiming David Duke a worthy leader; and for people who willfully do such disgusting things I have but one name: Filthy Whores. |
