Posted on 03/12/2003 9:32:49 AM PST by Phlap
The flag that the Ku Klux Klan parade down Pennsylvania Avenue during the massive Klan rallies in Washington, DC during the 1930's was not the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.
It was Old Glory.
To this day, the Klan wraps Old Glory around itself and Old Glory is usued more extensively at Klan activities than any other flag.
Is Old Glory "lost" too?
Precisely, hence my question. It is good that you put thought to this question as far too many people are oblivious to its existence.
What is the alternative? Cultural or ethical absolutism?
Personally, I believe in ethical absolutes. I believe in preservation and defense of those absolutes. And I do not believe in unprovoked conquest abroad, hence my generally isolationist take on foreign policy. If that suffices for the third option you desire, I encourage it. If not, let us continue this discussion further so that I may explain it.
What happens when two groups with conflicting absolutes clash--strongest wins?
In the event that such clashes occur between two groups percieving themselves to have an absolute claim to what is true and right, the stronger may defeat the weaker though the weaker need not necessarily have the inferior claim to an absolute truth. That is an unfortunate aspect of reality - the just cause is not always the cause that prevails, though it does prevail more often than many think. That being said, it is worth noting that a claim to the absolute does not mean actual posession of the absolute, nor does this lack of actual posession of the absolute mean that the absolute does not exist.
Osama bin Laden and G.W. Bush both adhere to ethical absolutism--they derive their ethics from their particular view of God.
That is not entirely so. Bin Laden, presuming that we may accurately uncover his "ethical" position by the way it is reflected in extreme versions of mohammedism that we do know, adheres to a position of post-skeptical fundamentalism. He comes from a tradition that rejects reason as a means of acquiring truth on the grounds that knowledge comes from perception through our senses, which are said to be inaccurate and deceptive. For lack of a better term, I will call this point of thought and the ensuing decisions the skeptic's dilemma. When reason, as a means of obtaining truth, is rejected in a society, three alternatives exist: (1) that society may accept the skeptic's wasteland left in its wake and make due with it - in other words, accept that there is no way of finding truth and conclude everything to be relative and non-absolute, (2) that society may reject the initial rejection of reason and return to reason as a means of finding the absolute, or (3) that society may accept the rejection of reason but attempt to substitute it with a greater, often divinely-claimed source of absolute truth. This third path was chosen by mohammedan culture around the 12th and 13th centuries by way of claiming the Koran. Bin Laden and the islamic fundamentalism of today are the direct heirs to that way of thinking.
Bush is harder to pinpoint as western philosophy reached the skeptic's dilemma at a much more recent stage in history than did the mohammedan world (Islamic philosphy came upon it in the 11th and 12th centuries, whereas the western world came upon it in the 18th century). In the wake of the western world's happening upon this dilemma, no clear path has been chosen (though some have been more prominent at times than others). In some areas, Christian fundamentalism has claimed the bible as a single source of greater truth. Elsewhere we have culturally pursued the relativism of a skeptic's wasteland. And yes, there are still some of us trying to take the route of reason as a way of escaping skepticism. Though I cannot speak for him, I suppose Bush is influenced by a little of each.
Now, as a way of evaluating these alternatives, I think you have established the danger of the fundamentalist route (course #2 at the skeptic's dilemma). It is my contention that course #1, the acceptance of relativism, is equally treacherous. I say so for the following reasons - if all cultures, all values, and all concepts of truth are relative to each other and none is superior to one another, no basis exists for the relativist to judge against the event if another culture emerges that asserts not only by way of its values and culture but also as its values and culture self-superiority over other cultures. In the event that this happens, nothing exists to determine right from wrong but the pure exertion of coercive force - in other words, the exertion of might then determines right.
That brings me to the third option, which is to reject skepticism by way of reason and then use reason as a means of abstracting truth. If this seems like a foreign notion, that is understandable. It is also indicative of how far we have allowed ourselves to slide. I'll spare the details for further discussions, but that is the third route if you desire to take it.
And what is their attitude towards the US flag, which flew over slavery far longer? And add to that the flags of the African nations that enslaved them to begin with?
And the flag of Sudan, India, Pakistan, Thailand, and Mauritania, which all NOW have some form of slavery - debt bondage, forced labor, forced prostitution, and/or chattel slavery? Not yesterday, but TODAY. Experts estimate that there are 27 million people enslaved in those countries.
I wonder if those thousands and tens of thousands of well educated blacks find that offensive?
Sorry, the First Amendment makes NO guarantee of anything.
Where does your so-called "right" to Free Speech come from? The First Amendment?
If it does, then somebody gave it to you. If they can give it, they can take it away. Do you believe this??
An excellent book Myths That Divide Us, by John Perazzo, (a young black man in America) has drawn rave reviews from eminent commentators.
He says black-white relations are sabotaged by demagogues who mischaracterize our country as racist.
Perazzo demonstrates that the most serious social and economic problems currently afflicting black Americans are not due to societal racism but to issues within the black community.
For example, countless studies show that fatherlessness, not race, is by far the most accurate predictor that a child will end up in poverty or in prison. And today about 70 percent of black children are born into fatherless homes.
In addition, ever since 1981, black families with two college educated, working adults have earned more than similar white families in every age group and in every region of the United States. As early as 1970, black two-parent families outside of the South were already earning more than comparable white families.
If the employer provides a place for employees to park, he can not discriminate against an employee because of the views he holds (or what "statements" may be on his means of transportation). Parking on the employee lot does not indicate that the employer is endorsing the opinion of the employee.
And if I got fired for sending my liberal sister a list of reasons why we SHOULD go to War with Iraq and did so on a company computer you would support my liberal boss for firing me?
If your company has a policy against using thier property for personal matters, then yes, they have every right to repimand you / fire you for theft. Important is that the company must have a policy against this and it must be uniformly enforced. The company may NOT chose which "opinion" can be expressed.
So, there were "good" slave owners and "bad" slave owners??
This is the first time I've seen this sentiment posted, however, this has been my thought since the controversy picked up steam.
What really irks me are the people that think they have to abuse the power of government to enforce the way they think other people should live.
But back to the flag issue.
I would not fly the Confederate flag because I realize it offends some people, and why be offensive?
And yes, my first thought when I see the flag on a truck, is that the person flying the flag is probably trying to offend someone and is thumbing his nose at civility.
So while I have no desire to outlaw the displaying of the Confederate flag, neither would I fly one and I would have a low opinion of anyone who does.
Many leftists, liberals, democrats and marxists in this country are also offended at the stars and stripes, conservative bumper stickers and NRA decals. Do you also have a low opinion of those that display those items?
41 posted on 02/19/2003 4:45 PM PST by HIDEK6
Gee....I'm sure many besides myself would consider your disdain for pregnant women and the disabled offensive, but that doesn't seem to bother you.
I am not native to the South, tho I have lived here a number of years and have no problem with the fact that the North won the war. I DO have a problem with a tyranny of any minority who pretends to dictate what is "acceptable" and what is not and of those who insist that we listen to them and act accordingly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.