Comments on: Showdown at Brookstone: An Ethics Train Wreck

By: Hank Oakes

Hank Oakes — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 13:48:47 +0000

Thanks to both of you.
Up until about a week ago I would only occasionally look at the Ethics Scoreboard site but with the new Ethics Alarm site I hope to be a more regular reader (and maybe even offer a comment).
Hank

By: Jack Marshall

Jack Marshall — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:31:47 +0000

Thanks Neil. I was wondering when you would show up!

By: Jack Marshall

Jack Marshall — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:29:06 +0000

Dear Hank: thanks for your measured reply. I love the Old Testament; so inspiring, so wise in so many ways. Like you, I am a product of my environment; my father- in-aw was a Methodist minister who tried to preach the lessons of the Bible rather than the literal words, in eloquent and profound sermons, and he was ostracized and attacked by what I (and he) regarded as narrow-minded absolutists. Between that and my law-and-drama driven studies of Clarence Darrow, a truly angry and contemptuous anti-religion zealot when he wasn’t making beautiful speeches about the soaring essence of the human spirit, I am sometimes more cynical about religious topics than I should be. Keep me in line, please.

By: Neil A. Dorr

Neil A. Dorr — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:00:25 +0000

I find it interesting that two rational and intelligent, yet heavily opinionated individuals, are able to carry on a civil exchange of ideas over the internet of all places (where such conversations are most definitely NOT the norm), while such proved impossible at Brookstone. One is forced to wonder where society at large is headed when the blogosphere provides makes more sense than real life ..

In other news, great article, Jack. I’m really digging the new site and layout!

-Neil

By: Hank Oakes

Hank Oakes — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:07:39 +0000

It was your “12th Century” and Old Testament bigotry comments that I found disrespectful. I see that your comments were directed at the belief, not at the individual. I understand the difference in being disresptful of a belief and being disrespectful to a person that holds that belief. I try to maintain that distinction in my relationships. I guess I’m just sensitive since I probably hold some of the same views as Mr. Vidala.

By the way, I find your analyses of the situations you address to be astoundingly objective. I truly appreciate your response to my comments.

By: Jack Marshall

Jack Marshall — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 23:05:42 +0000

I don’t think that’s what I’m saying, Hank. I’m saying that expressing an opinion about a belief is not bound to be respectful, if I don’t find the beliefs worthy of respect. (I don’t respect Scientology, for example.) In face-to-face dealings with colleagues, I AM so bound. They desrve respect, even if their religion may not.

Again I ask: what was it exactly that you found disrespectful?

By: Hank Oakes

Hank Oakes — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:11:07 +0000

So its okay to be disrespectful as long as you are “right”.

By: Jack Marshall

Jack Marshall — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:46:34 +0000

Dear Hank: Was it “12th Century” that you deem disrespectful? I apologize. It was snotty, though not exactly inaccurate, except perhaps too recent, no? A literal reading of the Bible embraces attitudes that are far older than that. It is splitting hairs, I guess, but still: I have respect for anyone who holds sincere religious beliefs of any kind. I don’t have respect for all religions, many of which cause a lot of strife, unhappiness and social problems by holding on to beliefs that no longer can be justified, except to say, “my mind’s made up, don’t confuse me with facts.” I’m an ethicist—that means I am working to figure out what’s right, based on accumulated wisdom. Religions are created by moralists: they set the rules, and that ends most of the argument, discussion and analysis. And when the moral rules begin to contradict what we have learned (ex.: the universe is not 10,000 years old; blacks do not have the mark of Cain; gays are every bit as good human beings as straights) and impede our acting on that wisdom, I don’t think they deesrve to be respected.
It was wrong to be disrespectful of the woman, just as I was respectful to a colleague who once explained to me carefully (inspired by a model of a pteranadon hanging from my office ceiling) that such creatures never actually existed, that their fossils were planted on earth by God to test our faith. I didn’t laugh in her face, though this theory is beyond ridiculous. I didn’t want her to feel badly. But do I have contempt for those who taught her such nonsense, and disrespect for any religion that would endorse such a thing?

Yes. I do.

By: Hank Oakes

Hank Oakes — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:58:45 +0000

I’ve written you one other time and you responded with some very thoughtful insights. I appreciate that. With regard to this particular column, I can’t disagree with your general conclusions, but I wonder why your derogatory comments about the conservative (literal?) interpretation of the Bible are any less “disrespectful and uncivil” than Mr. Vidala’s were to the visiting manager.
Thanks.