1) Do Respect and Honor ALL Life/Nature.

EVERYTHING in the universe has purpose, meaning, and an innate right to exist. (No need to invoke God, Creationism or The Theory of Evolution )

2) Do EMPATHIZE with others in all transactions.

Consider the effect of your actions vis-à-vis others by walking in their shoes. Don’t take advantage of people via trickery or superior intellect. This is the root of the Golden Rule – no vengeful tit for tat.

3) Do not kill more than is needed for physical sustenance.

I believe that most people would agree that the deprivation of life and/or resources for gluttony is less than ideal and should be discouraged.

4) Do not commit violence on yourself or others, life, or the environment.

Violence is a result of FEAR and unexpressed pent up aggression, fostered by a sense of powerlessness to attain desires by the incompetent, ignorant or impatient and NEVER justified.

5) Do not attempt to attain an IDEAL by violating any of the above propositions.

The “All of the above” Meta-rule – IDEAL ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY LESS THAN IDEAL MEANS.

Herbert Browne: Good to see your handle reappear. BTW Strom Thurmond’s first wife, Jean Crouch, was a close friend of my mother’s. My mother told me that at the time she didn’t approve of their age difference and warned her not to marry him. I don’t know if he was already suffering from Spike Lee’s Jungle Fever at that time.

Peace to ALL

Re “if people are offended by other people’s choice of who they recognize as their forefathers or founders, as the case may be, then one is forced to wonder what is genuinely on the minds of these people…”-
True enough… I have wondered, myself, why anyone took umbrage with Trent Lott’s celebration of that great American patriot, Strom Thurmond- not, I’ll grant you, a perfect man, but a persistent one- who, aside from a bit of alleged miscenegative hi-jinks (in his exhuberant youth, no doubt) became a beacon to many in the Heartland of the Old Colonies.

Re “Isn’t it ironic how some people who preach freedom and equality try to take away those freedoms from others who think differently than they do?”
I’d say that it’s a bit beyond ‘ironic’… “diabolical” comes to mind… & so does ‘Palestine’.
^..^

Martha Nussbaum uses Roger Williams’ Stoicism as a background to illustrate the subtleties between the moral and the theological. We can bring our morality to the table as Nussbaum interpreting Williams’s points out, but not its source. It is the separation of religious imagery, and state, but not of morality. (It should be noted that the writing or interpretation of law is one thing – for this we do not need images – and a picture of the Ten Commandments in a courtroom is another).

Why should one make a conscious choice to disrespect the memory of the people who founded this wonderful place called America? Yes, it is imperfect. But so are we. We are a land of contradictions; successes and failures. If someone asked us to trash the memory of a favorite teacher or a particularly enriching experience in our lives, should we say OK just because the person asking has had unfortunate experiences in life?

I take issue with Martha Nussbaum on interpreting Justice Scalia when referring to the three great monotheistic religions. After quoting Scalia that “It is fine to celebrate monotheism” she interprets this as meaning that “It makes a statement that other people are not fully equal citizens”. This is where she and many others lose it. “Equality” is not the issue in this context. It is simply recognition of the group of [Christian] founders in contrast to other groups who were not founders. They are the ones who paved the way for the rest of us in the same way that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob paved the way for their people. If people are offended by other people’s choice of who they recognize as their forefathers or founders, as the case may be, then one is forced to wonder what is genuinely on the minds of these people. It is no longer a “legal issue” at this point, but one of aesthetics – which is where the philosopher gets into trouble. It does not matter the source of these values, as long as we use them.

Should we trash our collective memories in exchange for a political agenda or anger for George Bush? Should we demonize the political constituency of the religious right because we find their religious imagery distasteful? Who would ask another to deem indistinguishable those original experiences from which we draw inspiration to similar ones we have encountered thereafter? Does not the original deserve status as the progenitor of the ones that follow?

Isn’t it ironic how some people who preach freedom and equality try to take away those freedoms from others who think differently than they do?

On hearing the podcast, Osvaldo writes again:

“You never disappoint me. Only this morning could I listen to the program, in the car that takes me to the center of Luanda very early in the morning. And it was every bit as interesting as I expected.

“I am very confused by things religious. Freud’s last book, Taylor’s latest book and the harassment of rationality that followed the Nietzschean tradition, including the Structuralists and the Post-Rationalists, all looking so passé now. We need to believe in reason and still Viktor Frankl gave us a very robust sense of our search for ultimate meaning. Indeed, the classical Greeks condemned us to stand in perpetual tension, deep within and in our attention for the res publica. I think this is the most important lesson of your program–we need to stay alert, with “the will to have a conscience”, as Heidegger put it.
I follow you from the times of The Connection. Years back you took my call during a program on Vicente Fox.

“Today I called my three American children to congratulate them for July 4. Although they communicate mostly in French now, they are very proud of being Americans and my wife and I do whatever we can to nurture that feeling.

“We live in the outskirts of Geneva since 2003, when I took a position with the United Nations. Now it is my wife who works at the UN and I am dedicated to consulting and teaching (http://www.genevadiplomacy.com/?menu_id=6&page_id=15&full=1&faculty_id=32). Since February I am advising the Angolan government on legal matters, going home from time to time. Being away in the tropics has helped me write a lot on applied ethics. As Vilfredo Pareto, the founder of microeconomics a century ago, I have lost a lot of faith in law and economics but not in moral philosopy.

“Keep up the good work, dear friend.”

Thank you, Osvaldo, for a preview of the global conversation we’re all bulding.

And on the other hand, you have the people who are the ideological descendants of the Optimates (“best people”) of republican Rome. It’s the latter that seems to have won out nationwide, as the “levelling impulses” of the masses are supposedly kept in check by the more powerful minority of enlightened oligarchs. The ruling class of our nation have made it clear that tolerance and respect of out-groups is not a priority, or even an agenda item. Diversity is a brand, brought out to generate profits and preserve the status quo, while a homogeneous conglomerate of power brokers use those profits to preserve the race and class boundaries that keep the common people disenfranchised.

In this upcoming election, we have a Roger Williams – and his name is Ralph.

Bill Moyers was agitated enough to do more than one very strong segment on “faith-based initiatives”. I am so very disappointed to hear that Obama is for it. I fear that Obama will triangulate away his promise of “change” the way of the Clintons.

Of Roger Williams and the founding of Rhode Island, not being a Christian myself, his ideas of equality and freedom of conscience have never left me since grade school where we were also made to sing Christmas Carols and do reports on how this holiday is celebrated around the world. This to my mother’s great dismay. For me it was interesting but I felt so different and left out.