Quote:
Originally Posted by Disciple
Obviously you feel strongly about this so perhaps we can have an intelligent and civil discussion. I think I can understand where you are coming from but will try to not assume. I would also point out that there is such a thing as "false humility". Since it is quite current and relevant to the current political situation in the US I would refer to Ayn Rand. Although I feel she was seriously mistaken in her beliefs, I also think that it is very instructive as to how she formed these beliefs and why they resonate with millions of people. (I will address the rest of your post in a later post, for now I want to frame the argument so that we are both talking about the same thing).
She grew up in Russia and witnesses first hand being "bulldozed" by the politics of the day which seized businesses that people built up under a pretense of altruism, the greater good, being charitable, etc. Perhaps I oversimplify, I am really not interested in the biography of Ayn Rand, only the context of what happened in Russia.
So then, why did people allow their government to seize businesses and attack an ethnic minority? Obviously one group that was clearly targeted and attacked at this time were the Jews, but they were certainly not the only group. More importantly what is the proper response? Should the Jews have fought? How should they have stood up for their rights?
To answer that question I am not interested in anyone's philosophy, I am interested in an example of a persecuted minority standing up to an unrighteous government successfully. Mahatma Ghandi obviously comes first to mind, and Martin Luther King Jr. also comes to mind. Malcolm X is a third example albeit a little more complex.
In every case it took faith for them to stand up and speak to the mountain to be cast into the sea. In every case these were men of faith who did not hide their faith. In every case these men did not bind themselves with requirements to not speak of their faith or of their God.
|
What happened in Russia is a good example of the sort of thing that I'm arguing against. I have long argued this about Communism in particular. Theoretically, the theory can be defended. The problem comes in when you impose a "religion" on a diverse population. All sorts of unintended
negative consequences flow from it.
Ghandi and MLK are very good examples of "seeking justice" in politics. And I would agree that they tood their stands
because of their faith. I would argue, though, that their public presentation did not need to invoke "God's will" in order to have a powerful moral force. Both of their arguments could be made by invoking premises that everyone in their audience could engage with, regardless of faith. Indeed, Ghandi was
very careful when it came to attaching his arguments to a faith. As soon as he died, the coalition of diverse faiths (at least of Hindu and Muslim) fell apart.
Thoughts on this?
Peter