Darren Boon
“Crazy times” was what Leigh Pasqual described Dr Thio Li Ann’s appointment as visiting professor at New York University (NYU) on a Facebook note.
Dr Thio, 41, an ex-Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) will be teaching ‘Human Rights Law in Asia’ during NYU’s Fall 09 Semester under the faculty’s Global Visiting Professor of Law programme.
Dr Thio’s biodata on the National University of Singapore Faculty of Law website lists one of her teaching subjects as ‘Human Rights Law in Asia’. She has a keen research interest in ‘Constitutionalism and Human Rights in Asia’ and ‘International Human Rights Law and The Rights of Peoples’, and has written extensively on the issues of human rights.
Ms Pasqual, a Singaporean living in New York put up the note on her Facebook page after receiving a forwarded email about Dr Thio’s appointment sent out by OUTlaw. OUTlaw is an organisation for LGBT students as well as for LGBT supporters and friends, and “actively promotes queer visibility on campus and acts as watchdog for LGBT issues arising within NYU and across the globe”.
OUTlaw issued a board statement to condemn Dr Thio’s parliamentary speeches over her support to keep 377A as “intolerant” and “reprehensible”. Her statements raise “serious questions about her fitness to teach a course on human rights”. Yet OUTlaw also notes Dr Thio’s contribution to the field of academia and to her being “a fierce defender of minority rights”.
At the same time, OUTlaw has urged the law faculty to issue a statement to condemn Dr Thio’s comments in parliament and reassert the faculty’s commitment to diversity. However, the Board hopes to engage in “respectful and productive dialogue about the boundaries of human rights” instead of fighting Dr Thio’s offensive views by silencing her.
Meanwhile Ms Pasqual has through her Facebook note urged “any self-respecting NYU student” to question the appointment of Dr Thio by writing in to the Vice Deans of the faculty.
“I hope you will question this appointment of someone who openly supports the criminalisation of gay people, who professes to be an expert in the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) but fails to practise what it preaches, and who uses her evangelical beliefs to colour her application of the law,” Ms Pasqual wrote.
Ms Pasqual also highlighted Dr Thio’s mother Dr Thio Su Mien’s as the “mastermind” of the failed “coup” at AWARE.
Calling Dr Thio’s appointment an oxymoron, Ms Pasqual said that one could not be a good human rights lawyer while espousing the opposite of what human rights are about.
“As I said she also professes to be an expert on CEDAW. And one of the key elements of CEDAW is to ensure that countries’ constitutions adequately reflect the rights of people, including women and gay people,” Ms Pasqual said.
A lively exchange ensued over Ms Pasqual’s Facebook note. Nick Lum was one who defended NYU’s move. He argued that Dr Thio’s appointment was made possible because institutions in the United States favour a variety of dissenting views, arguments and perspectives to allow students to have a “full flavour” and understanding of different perspectives.
Mr Lum wrote: “To be fair, Dr Thio is a rather known human rights lawyer. It is only the one point on homosexuality that she allows her religion to cloud her rationality.”
He later added that it would be better to challenge Dr Thio’s faith rather than her credentials during her lectures so that she would be “able to see the light and contradictions in her actions”.
Tris Xavier, 25, doing a law pupillage said: “Dr Thio might be the closest thing we have to a constitutional law advocate in Singapore. Her view on constitutionalism comes the closest to the US view on it.”
Mr Xavier told Ms Pasqual: “I’d advise you to alternatively not allow your view of her religion-imposing, wrong as she was, to colour your view of her teachings.”
When queried by The Online Citizen over Dr Thio’s appointment, Jason Casell, Public Affairs Officer, School of Law, said that Dr Thio had been selected for the appointment based on her published academic scholarship, and not on the basis of her parliamentary statements in her capacity as an NMP.
“We believe that she will make a valuable contribution to our Global classroom and to intellectual life of the law school when she is here this fall,” Mr Casell said.
Noting that the Law school has a long record of opposing discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and for being supportive of the GLBT community, Ms Casell believes that there will be members of the faculty, staff and student body who will disagree with Dr Thio over the content of her speech.
“We expect a dynamic exchange on these issues. This is what makes institutions of higher learning so indispensable to our society — the ability to provide a forum for these kinds of exchanges,” he added.
Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, said that he would not advise NYU to rescind the invitation to Thio to teach there. But he said that it would be legitimate to raise questions about whether she should be teaching human rights.
“Academic freedom protects you from retaliation for your extramural remarks, but it does not protect you from being prohibited from teaching in an area where you are not professionally competent, and there are doubts on whether she has the competency in human rights,” Nelson said. He said that there is in fact an “international consensus, save a few countries like Iran” that gay people should not be treated as criminals.
——
Excerpts from Inside Higher Ed:
Should someone who teaches human rights back human rights for all people?
That’s the question being raised by some students at New York University’s law school, who are upset that a visiting professor in the fall semester, slated to teach human rights law, is Thio Li-ann of the National University of Singapore, an outspoken opponent of gay rights. Thio has argued repeatedly and graphically that her country should continue to criminalize gay sexual acts.
NYU OUTLaw, a group of gay and lesbian students at the law school, last week sent an e-mail message to all students drawing attention to Thio’s statements, saying that it was crucial to “raise awareness of anti-gay statements made by an NYU visiting professor” because “it is important for LGBT students and allies to be aware of her views in order to make fully informed decisions regarding class registration.”
Read the full article here.
From Above The Law:
Academic freedom is a beautiful thing, essential to our nation’s celebrated system of higher education. And, to borrow the words of Dick Cheney on gay marriage, “freedom means freedom for everyone” — including people whose ideas we might not like, or even find repugnant.
How far should academic freedom extend? That’s an issue being faced right now at NYU Law School. The following message went out to the law student community last week:
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
The BIG BANG occurs when 2 pairs of balls collide or clash during a stormy night.
Can I suggest that you debating creationists and evolutionists bash your heads against a on coming train. Some can lie on the tracks to test both theories to see which is true.What I can see is body parts fly.You bunch of boh liow
Mike2cts #299,
you can ask all manner of those sorts of questions, as Arix did in #279, and come back with the response “I don’t know” from those in the relevant field of study. You can proceed to get creative with answers you would like, but those are not answers, they are wild speculations.
Back in the day, they used to ask those questions to the question “what is the shape of the Earth”. Because nobody knew the answers, they referred to the Bible and came back with the answer: flat. (which is wrong by the way)
Not knowing now simply means not knowing now, and not “God did it”.
“303) H20 on July 16th, 2009 2.12 pm
Some can lie on the tracks to test both theories to see which is true.What I can see is body parts fly.You bunch of boh liow”
So why are you here listening to boh liow theories.
Body parts fly apart from live parts to dead parts and then to decaying stuff eventually blending & breaking down along the train track if they are left there long enough without anyone bothering to clean them up.
Like in everything, just one state to another state given long enough time, as in half-life of any atomic element. What do you call this, H20 theories.
#301 gemami;;;Hi gemami;;; Your arguments are based on false premises that we have gays and non-gays;; is this the true state of affairs;;This psychological dichotomy is a ‘construct’ of your mind;;; I will quote an example from the past to clearify ;;; Guru Nanak (1469-1539) the founder of Sikhism, after observing the enormous destruction and annihiliation produced from religious warfare in Moghul India came up with this gem ” There is no Hindu, there is no Muslim” and with just that teaching he created a brand new religion, Sikhism, which was essentially a ‘middle-way’ that solved a lot of problems between the muslims and the hindus;;; Similarly, like Guru Nanak, i propose that “there is no gay, there is no non-gay”;;; The true state of affairs where human-sexuality ( like Freud found out, after a lifetime of clinical observation and study) is that we are all bi-sexuals all our lives, and that this sexuality is in manifest or latent state;;;A lot of people who are brought-up on false views and fixed views don’t realise that they are heading towards a dead-end;;;Therfore, my advise is, we must relinquish these wrong views.
gemami #300,
that’s a loaded question. You are assuming their “agenda” is fear-based. A fairer question to the point might be: “what do you want to achieve?”
budamax1952 #306,
Psychology has come a long long way since Freud.
budamax1952,
What can be more false than a society that is not made up of gays and non-gays, black (now coloured) and white, male and female? Your reasoning is from a minority’s angle, that’s why your notion of the middle-path will not take off with the majority. It will be a futile attempt to link it to the gay’s fight for non-discrimination and equal rights, because they too, belong to the minority. And with reasoning like this, even the gays will look at you with averted eyes – simply because you are attempting to make a minority into a majority. It won’t work.
Furthermore, to debate your comments adequately, I will have to go into the religion realm. I won’t do this. God is someone whom mere mortals should not discuss. We don’t even know where we will place our next step, yet we want to understand the Omnipotent, Everlasting and Almighty God. We simply can’t, not with all the human intellect and writings put together.
sllim,
Yes, the insinuation is fear. It may be a presumptuous insinuation but when one reads the postings from the so many threads here, the impression cannot be lost on the reader. The fear to be continually discriminated against, the fear that their fight may not produce the desired result, these are sentiments that are being expressed over and over again – described in many forms and styles.
However, you are also right that the more important question would be: “what you want to achieve?”. I think I made this clear enough in my concluding remarks in the earlier post – the desire to be counted among the rest of society – as equals.
Gemani,
If I’m hearing you right, you feel that a ‘softer’ approach might be necessary.
What I don’t understand is this – there are enough examples to show that the gay community is not a monolithic bunch of hedonistic sex-and-drugs-starved people. Thio Li-Ann herself did talk about the gay friends she disagreed with, and I would assume that she could also see that those friends of hers are capable of monogamous ‘stable’ relationships. I’m also assuming that they would be pretty intellectual and reasonable given the circle she walks in. And – barring the GLBT issue – she would need to be someone of not too low intellect to be an academic. And yet she remains unpersuaded.
So how would the ‘softer’ approach work?
Gemami #309,
The fear-question is misleading not only because it is a loaded question that assumes that implies that’s all there is to it, but it is ultimately irrelevant. I could easily ask, to use your example, what do the people who were against the chewing gum ban fear? Isn’t that just ridiculous?
I haven’t seen a good secular anti-gay argument since the AWARE fiasco. Scratch that. I haven’t seen one ever. There’s religion (“God hates fags”), xenophobia and the ick-factor. I mean come on, what else is there? Can you really blame them for being confrontational? What will you have them do? Beg for acceptance for who they are? (Some of them do, I am sure.)
Correct me if I am wrong. I am under the impression that your rationality is convinced that homosexuals are right in the equal-rights fight but you still have a problem with homosexuality. If this is indeed the case, can you explain why?
And on the back of Zefly’s question: what softer-approach do you think will work on those not amenable to reason?
I know! I know!
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I do see a link between a patriachial mode of thinking, and the marginalization of gays.
I mean, isn’t one of the misconceptions about gay people is that they are ‘faggots’ – ie feminine?
So, the gay community have to masculinize the concept of ‘gay’ in the popular notion to get the majority’s acceptance – the way Gemami suggests.
Let’s start with the tagline-
How about…
“Man Enough To Be Gay” ?
Gay people, are you taking notes yet?
Gemami #309,
“God is someone whom mere mortals should not discuss. We don’t even know where we will place our next step, yet we want to understand the Omnipotent, Everlasting and Almighty God. We simply can’t, not with all the human intellect and writings put together.”
That doesn’t work. It is internally inconsistent; you applied human intellect to a concept which you then declare is above the human intellect. Any magical creature can be invented thus.
We might as well say 1+1=banana (no relation to Ray Comfort’s Proof of God), then turn around and declare by fiat no amount of arithmetic can disprove this, because a banana is above the realm of arithmetic.
Zefly #312,
If I am not wrong, gay beefcakes are called “bears”. As though homophobes are not adversed enough, they have to go bulk up like crazy. What are they thinking?
Maybe “bears” buy into the misconception as well.
I know Sliim #314,
Not to mention they have a hegemony on style and creativity… and eloquence (try debating with a gay person), and what more, them butches stole our bitches!
Come to think of it, I should be fighting on the OTHER side!
Dr Thio! Where are you? Space for a new member?
zefly 315,
Congratulations on having the first good (is good the right word?) secular anti-gay argument.
The Not-fair-please-look-at-me-I-talk-good-too-them-bitches-are-mine-plus-I-am also-very-creative argument is at least empirically verifiable, I think.
271) la nausée on July 16th, 2009 12.20 am
#(3) The statement “It is right to punish a person engaging in homosexual sex” is probably false# contradicts your earlier assertion (#252) that “Morality is objective, in the sense that a moral statement is either true or false.” If a moral statement is either true or false, there shouldn’t be any ‘probably’ about it.
However, glad to note that you now agree (#298) that there is no ‘objective’ morality and that morality is in a constant state of evolution towards a Moral Ideal. Whilst I agree that morality does evolve (whether progressively or regressively is moot, it depends on which region or area we are referring to and against which set of moral principles), I am not too sure that it is towards a Moral Ideal. It would be ideal if it were. My point however is that in the absence of an ‘objective’ morality, morality must necessarily be subjective.
As for your argument on the distinction between ethics (what’s right or wrong) and meta-ethics (the status of claims about right and wrong), it seems specious but is fallacious. Take your example:
The statement “Wearing black socks is wrong” is false.
Question: Would this statement still be false if the wearer was required to be in uniform which stipulated that only white socks be worn? I would agree that shooting a person for disobeying dress codes is a little extreme, but there are other forms of punishment other than a capital one. Moreover, what if he were a soldier and instead of wearing camouflage he wears black socks and this endangers the lives of his platoon? Should he not be punished? In an earlier age, he might conceivably be shot.
In a nutshell, one cannot make absolute statements like the example given by you above. Also, theories on subjectivity/relativism aside, the absence of an absolute morality does not mean that there cannot be common ground on what constitutes ‘right’ and ‘wrong’; however, our rationale for arriving at a common right or wrong may differ.
306) budamax1952 on July 16th, 2009 2.40 pm
another middle roader theory, bisexual. Who are you trying to please? La nausee, slim or zefly? That Freud guy is a fraud. You have swallowed line ,hook , balls and sinker.You can be a fraud too. You make more sense if you keep away from the fraud pyscologist. He needs a pyschatrist. Send him to IMH and you can keep him company so that both can have a bisexual discourse.
PS (#282),
1-3) I feel too exhausted to re-iterate my view again. Please read my replies to smallvice, the parts on the direct and indirect licensing.
Quote from #246,
“”"
Direct Licensing is where there is a “divine right” in operation, or when a Religious Council actually supervises Parliament, like in Iran. The Direct approach can of course be too formal.
Indirect Licensing is much more common. Indirect Licensing is where “culture” and “common sense” are used as substitutes for a Religion that is dead in practice. It is also where secularists have usurped religious values to overthrow clerical hierarchies, and changed those that they didn’t like.
“”"
Does the part in italics answer your question?
6) What society does depends on politics and religion (spirituality).
mice (#283),
Well, there is a role for everything, whether these people like it or not. There is a role for the State, and a role for Organized Religion, and a role for Religious Spirituality.
On the other hand, perhaps how the religious divisions offer their moral tones can be changed somewhat. That would still be a WIP.
Zef (#284),
Not quite. What I have tried to do is to analyze why God says so. (And not my God, because that implies polytheism.)
I have been trying to work out a theory of morality/sin that goes beyond the “Sin is a crime against God, that is why it is wrong” argument.
Zef (#286),
3) And I would ask Dawkins where his genes come from. :D (I wonder … how to do emoticons?)
6) Agree; but it is not necessarily linearly progressive. However, man does progress closer to the Moral Ideal each time new knowledge is found. Yet, because there are so many dimensions for the Ideal, Man might gravitate closer on one dimension and further on another. (My solar-system analogy is somewhat reductionist in this aspect.)
7) Indeed.
8) This part of your history is flawed.
The purpose of the Classic of History was to record tales of morality from before Confucius. As Confucius himself states in the Classic of Rites (I read the English Translation), the moral sense of the Chinese People exists since the time they lived in caves (Paleolithic Era). That would be 5000 BC?
(You can find the translations on http://chinese.dsturgeon.net)
Jewish Morality doesn’t mysteriously appear during the return of the Jews from Exile. It is a tradition handed down from at least Abraham, if not Noah and Seth. Abraham’s culture is datable to around 1900-1800 BC. The Mosaic Covenant resembles other covenants in 1400 BC in the Near East.
(For more on this, read K.A. Kitchen’s “On the Reliability of the Old Testament”.)
Your Axial Age Theory – that sounds like it is from Karen Armstrong – is somewhat flawed then.
9) Just because Rome approved of slavery, doesn’t mean Jesus did.
10) The merging of religious codes with militancy is an unfortunate thing, but that doesn’t indicate that religion is inherently militant.
11) What exactly is that idea?
12) The Progress of Morality does involve the increase in altruism, as you define it. But it also includes the Growth in Moral Sense. Moral Progress is in 2 steps: Recognizing the Them as Us, and Us all growing together toward the set-up that is the Moral Ideal. And there is only one Moral Ideal, not a cluster. You missed out the second step.
13) For full progress to occur, the Progress must be both horizontal and vertical, becoming wider and deeper. You are over-concentrating on the horizontal aspect, and neglecting the vertical aspect. As Ken Wilber says, one must not forgo Growth Hierarchies because one hates Dominator Hierarchies.
14) Not if you are on the lower end of the scale.
15-16) Ah, but I approach immorality in a different way. At least you should be able to see that my approach to immorality is some steps up from the Fundamentalists’ “jail all homos” approach advocated by TSM (I guess).
Let’s look at the “highland”, instead of the flatland, okay?
Zef (#287),
Yes, but a definitely at a lower level than the Patriarch.
Sliim (#288),
1) It means exactly what it says.
2) Ahh, but Dawkins takes on the “wide” definition of ID. He writes a book with the thesis that Evolution can explain away God. So that is Evolutionism.
buda (#290),
That article is from 3 years ago.
Anyhow, he is technically correct in a historical sense. On a Moral sense, more dodgy. He doesn’t have the diplomatic calibre of John Paul II.
sliim (#293),
In the long term, His Holiness is correct. Of course, as Lord Keynes said, “In the Long Term We are All Dea.”, so…
sliim (#294),
so go on!
Mat Doll (#295),
Your question is only answerable if we knew the total number of layers in the doll.
La Nausee (#296),
1) That is not an answer to the question. The Question is really, “What is the origin of Evolution itself?”
2) No, you got the question wrong. The question is:-
Take Organism A to be the Common Ancestor of both animals and plants. Animals eat plants. Natural selection is a mechanism meant to ensure survival of the species. How does animals eating plants ensure the survival of both animals and plants?
3) Common Descent is not just a theory about the past; it is also a theory about the present and future. It is supposed to be able to continue to occur even today, so prospective logic is not irrelevant to the question.
sliim (#311),
2) That is because you have chosen to stereotype religious views.
LM (#317),
2) Evolution has a start stage A and an end-stage B. So, there must be a Moral Ideal that is targetted in order to cause change in Moral Perceptions. You can’t eat a non-existent cake.
6) Unless there is an absolute, there cannot be a “common” anything.
Arix #324,
And what is this “wide definition of ID” that he takes on? Direct quotes from him and IDers, please.
(Am I the only person wondering if Arix is just making things up as he goes along?)
# 318 H20;;; The bi-sexual theory is not just a theory it’s an actuality meaning it is the true state of affairs where our human sexuality is concerned. So why should it need support from the gays or non-gays to stand up on its own. It is complete in itself and can be proven true, through individual experience when there is no repression in our thinking and when we are not attached to any wrong views. I have to reiterate that accepting this theory doesn’t mean that if you are male you rush off looking for a male partner and if you female you rush off looking for a female partner. Don’t worry about that. Just be natural. You just have to accept that our sexuality is fluid in nature. Nothing to be ashamed of right. We are the way we are built. Its no big deal. Just like we have 2 hands and 2 feet, its natural. Why get uptight about it. Relax brother.
Arix #324,
Can you provide an example?
Arix #326,
How so? Not by evidence, I presume.
Abstinence works 100%, no doubt. But it’s just fatuous to think abstinence-only programmes/education work likewise. There’s a decent amount of evidence pointing at the abject failure of those. Outside the Vatican, in the real world, people enjoy having sex, I have no problem considering such misinformation “evil”.
Arix #327,
Go on what? Talkorigins? I know a fair bit about Evolution and science. Fair enough, at any rate. It’s really meant for people who know very little about Evolution and science.
Arix #330,
I was quoting Fred Phelps. Fine, not all Christians think that, some also think God really really loves them, just not not as they are, so they must change-or else.
Arix #331,
“Evolution has a start stage A and an end-stage B.” Back this up. Not by your own “theory” please, real stuff from biologists.
hi Arix,
post #320 on July 16th, 2009 8.44 pm mice (#283),
////Well, there is a role for everything, whether these people like it or not. There is a role for the State, and a role for Organized Religion, and a role for Religious Spirituality.////
state is Big Bro, Religion to you also is Big Bro (no. 2)? how can the role of religion be dictated by men? besides there are many religions, there is no good reason for a “few” vocal & religious people to make bold claims for all religions.
////On the other hand, perhaps how the religious divisions offer their moral tones can be changed somewhat. That would still be a WIP.////
there is a difference between offering views & clamouring to drown out of people’s views that differs from 1′s own. also, tact is required on when & where to offer such views, simply because of it’s sensitive nature.
slim #304
You contradict yourself. Not knowing now means “God did it” is a possibility?
@Arix (#329),
1) The Question is really, “What is the origin of Evolution itself?”
This is exactly the same type of question as, “What is the origin of the laws of physics themselves?” As I said, the anthropic principle explains why evolution and the laws of physics are the way they are, without needing to posit an uncaused First Cause which significantly complicates the overall theory.
2) How does animals eating plants ensure the survival of both animals and plants?
You have a way of framing questions strangely (!). ‘Eating’ (heterotrophy) occurs because it is the most efficient way of obtaining the necessary carbon-based compounds and (together with energy) producing energy). Heterotrophy begun even from viruses and bacteria, and in fact preceded autotrophy (through photosynthesis) by plants, since light was in short supply in the Earth’s earliest days.
The reason why heterotrophy is feasible is explained by predator-prey interaction theory. Simply put: if X eat Y, and too little Y are left, many X will die of starvation; in the meantime, the population of Y recovers. So it’s a self-correcting mechanism.
Also, didn’t you learn in primary school that animals and plants share a symbiotic relationship through the nutrient cycle? In that sense, plants benefit from animals eating them.
3) Common Descent is not just a theory about the past; it is also a theory about the present and future. It is supposed to be able to continue to occur even today, so prospective logic is not irrelevant to the question.
See above.
Sorry, in #337, I meant, “(together with respiration)”.
Mike2cts #336,
“You contradict yourself. Not knowing now means ‘God did it’ is a possibility?”
I’ll repeat myself: Not knowing now simply means not knowing now, and not “God did it”
Another way to put it is: not know now doesn’t mean “God did it”
Get it?
#322 Arix,
I did mention it’s a very sketchy picture because I do not intend to write lengthly thesis’s, so I do believe you are splitting hairs.
By ‘moral evolution’ I mean in on a social scale. Of course at any given point in history or even prehistory, there would be individuals who ‘arrived’ pretty close to the Ideal – even the most famous Buddha we know of- Siddhārtha Gautama- mentioned that he wasn’t the first Enlightened One.
8 ) We’re talking about the codes, norms of morality being adopted/institutionalized on a much larger scale than there was before – so what you disagreed on isn’t facts, but semantics.
9) Jesus is largely silent on slavery – but we can take it that he doesn’t approve of slavery. And yet his silence on homosexuality is argued that since he is a Jew, he would share the stance as the Jews. How so?
10) Splitting hairs, dude. My point was that even if a Highly Realized Individual understood fully what the Ideal is, it would take ages for the rest of us mere mortals to catch up.
11 – 12) I dun quite get you on the Moral Sense thingy.
slim#339
I understand the “now’ scenario. Is knowing “God did it” a possibility in your consideration?
Do we know ourselves? In the movie “The Matrix”, the “world” was the reality of all the human brains kept alive and functioning in jars of nutrients. To stretch it further, why the need for the brains & jars of nutrients?
Could we be just virtual data processing units exchanging info with other units?
When our “hands” touches something, when our “mouths” tastes something, when our “eyes” sees something, when our “ears” hear something & when our “noses” smell something , we affirm the physical world. How can we be sure it’s there since all of us operate in the same way? Or maybe none of you are reading this is real?
Big Bang theory can be explained in this scenario cos it’s all data! A superdense particle containing all the material in the universe would just be … data.
@LadyMadonna (#317), you said:
“I would agree that shooting a person for disobeying dress codes is a little extreme, but there are other forms of punishment other than a capital one. Moreover, what if he were a soldier and instead of wearing camouflage he wears black socks and this endangers the lives of his platoon? Should he not be punished? In an earlier age, he might conceivably be shot.”
in the first place, by asking, “Should he not be punished?”, you are making the objective moral claim that “A soldier who endangers the lives of his platoon should be punished”. You’re not in fact denying objective morality, you’re simply saying that objective moral standards may generate differing conclusions according to the particular circumstances to which they are applied. For example, an autocrat who decrees a law that “Every person seen to be wearing black socks in the streets will be shot” clearly acts wrongly. A military commander, faced with mutiny amongst his ranks and a dangerous enemy, and who proclaims that “Any soldier wearing black socks will be shot”, is less clearly wrong.
It is also no good answer that “[i]n an earlier age, he might conceivably be shot”. Citing an historical or empirical fact does cannot falsify a moral judgment: “We shoot people” doesn’t imply “We ought to shoot people”. The correct response is that our ancestors were mistaken in believing that the appropriate punishment for wearing black socks is to be shot.
Subjectivism is a wearisome distraction, especially because no one is ever a consistent moral subjectivist. The typical skeptic rants on like this: “Hey, you claim that your religion/morality has the correct answers. But there is no such thing as ‘right’ or ‘wrong’; it’s a matter of individual opinion, and no one can say that the other is mistaken. It is wrong for you to impose your beliefs on me. It is wrong for you to criminalize homosexual sex when it’s such a controversial issue. It is wrong for religious believers to attempt to convert non-believers. It is wrong for you to restrain me from disagreeing with you.”
Notice how the skeptic immediately contradicts himself or herself by making several moral claims which are held out to be objectively true (i.e. which purport to apply universally). So all that tosh about there being no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ is meaningless filler, a distraction from the substantive and objective moral statements being made.
A JIHAD FOR LOVE
Six years in the making, A Jihad for Love is the groundbreaking documentary by Muslim gay filmmaker Parvez Sharma which explores the complex issue of homosexuality and Islam.
Filmed in twelve countries and nine languages, A Jihad for Love speaks from within the faith, illuminating the lives of its gay and lesbian subjects in all their human complexity and diversity.
This film is not only a rare, first-hand account of the threats faced by gays and lesbians, but it is a celebration of the courageous effort that is being made by Muslims around the world, often in silence or alone, to reconcile their faith and their love.
Film Website: http://www.ajihadforlove.com/
Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78jUBRio3So
321) Arix
“Not quite. What I have tried to do is to analyze why God says so. (And not my God, because that implies polytheism.)”
Maybe God didn’t say what you think he said. You can’t be that arrogant to presume your antenna is tuned closer to His frequency than the rest of us.
“I have been trying to work out a theory of morality/sin that goes beyond the “Sin is a crime against God, that is why it is wrong” argument.”
Sin is what takes you away from God. Putting the concept of Heaven and Hell aside first, IMHO, being with God means being in that state of Love, Grace and Happiness in spite of the conditions of the physical world – and that is just a very weak definition. I do believe that many of what is attributed as His Words and Commandments are perfectly REASONABLE to reach/remain in that state. For example, lying is ‘sinful’ because it makes the perpetuators live in a state of denial and dishonesty, which isn’t the best place to be in. (Whether I practice it or not is another matter altogether.)
Hence I can’t understand how being homosexual automatically distances one from God – unless you want to revert to the Adam-Eve-not-Adam-Steve argument, thus gays are living in denial and dishonesty because they deny their true nature. But unless you live inside their mind, you can’t be that presumptuous to say they are in denial.
Your arguments on the grounds on psychology holds no water too, because based on your penchance for indulging in online debates means spending a disproportionate amount of time alone- like me- do indicate you show signs of neurotism. Should I therefore recommend that it’s best for you not to marry and procreate – to prevent the ‘spread’ of neurosis – and also seek some reparative therapy?
Mike2cts #341,
you are not kidding about the 2 cents are you?
1) Sure, it’s possible for someone to CLAIM to know (as opposed to believe) that “God did it”.
2) It’s possible for God(s) (any one or number of of them, even one we make up right this minute) to exist. It follows that it’s possible to “know” he/she/it/they did it.
In the instances above, psychological examination might be called for. We know for a fact, that people hallucinate and are very capable of misinterpreting reality (eye witness accounts for example). There are also numerous cases of people killing others claiming God told them to. Those might have gotten a free pass in the past, but in this day and age, probably not.
3) Ahh, the ol’ brain in a vat pseudo-quandary. It’s useless speculation when we can’t tell even if it exist. It’s even more useless than the God hypothesis, at least that gives everyone something to chew on.
@sllim (#311), you said: “I haven’t seen a good secular anti-gay argument since the AWARE fiasco. Scratch that. I haven’t seen one ever.”
Well, attempts have been made, to say the least. The basic thrust is that sex, to be morally good, must involve both mutual affection and procreative potential. Appended is one example for your delectation:
“Genital intercourse between spouses enables them to actualize and experience… their marriage itself, a single reality with two blessings (children and mutual affection). Non-marital intercourse, especially but not only homosexual, has no such point and therefore is unacceptable.
The union of the reproductive organs of husband and wife really unites them biologically… Reproduction is one function and so, in respect of that function, the spouses are indeed one reality, and their sexual union therefore can actualize and allow them to experience their real common good—their marriage with the two goods, parenthood and friendship…
But the common good of friends who are not and cannot be married (for example, man and man, man and boy, woman and woman) has nothing to do with their having children by each other, and their reproductive organs cannot make them a biological (and therefore personal) unit. So their genital acts together cannot do what they may hope and imagine. [They] can do no more than provide each partner with an individual gratification. For want of a common good that could be actualized and experienced by this bodily union, that conduct involves the partners in treating their bodies as instruments to be used in the service of their consciously experiencing selves…“
“The basic thrust is that sex, to be morally good, must involve both mutual affection and procreative potential.”
Why is it then that sex between a married couple that do not want to have kids isn’t considered morally bad then, since they’re not keen to exercise the procreative potential?
la nausée #345,
a) do you, personally, consider that a good secular anti-gay argument?
b) If not, why are you slinging crap at me?
b) If so, are you serious? If you are, I’ll work on a response.
@sllim (#347), I do not, but I don’t think that’s the issue here. The fact is that this argument articulates and develops an ‘anti’-gay position (1) in a way does not directly reference religion, and thus which people can reasonably accept regardless of religious belief; (2) which is not flagrantly illogical; (3) has a distinguished academic and intellectual pedigree (including the Greek philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, but also a cadre of modern-day philosophers and legal scholars); and (4) which Thio & Co. are relying on in support of 377A.
@Zefly (#346), the argument is that the act has procreative potential, so whether one wants children or not is irrelevant.
Re: post #349. I forget to add: (5) which many within the heterosexual majority subscribe to, either consciously or subconsciously.
“the argument is that the act has procreative potential, so whether one wants children or not is irrelevant.”
Then we’ll have to question if the morality of an act can be judged on its potential or its intent.
A sword has potential to kill, but does it make wielding a sword immediately bad?
I can’t see how the an act of sex between a married couple who do it out of pure mutual gratification and as an expression of emotional bonding – but taking measures to prevent the fulfilment of the procreative potential- is any more morally good than that of those between a committed homosexual couple!
And by the same token, sex between INFERTILE people should be considered morally wrong since there is no procreative potential to speak of!