Pursuit of Redemption - Latest Comments

Re: Food, Inc., Environmentalists, and the Need for Purpose

Nman — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 11:37:19 -0000

Yikes - your post is as biased as the folks you accuse of being biased!

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Kevin Smith — Thu, 09 Dec 2010 12:52:50 -0000

I think we agree on one very core principle here: whether truth is real and objective or just a relative measure based on social norms, etc. That's one of the points I was trying to make, though it was only implied. I suppose I should've been more explicit there: most of the commenters seem to have missed that point entirely.

While it's true that there is a major disconnect over the moral issue, I didn't focus on that as a means to disarm the issue. The fact is, when I wrote this post Belmont still hadn't made an official statement. Everything the news media was writing about and the students were in a frenzy over was a narrative assembled from the speculating reports of some of the soccer players mixed with a few vague statements Howe made through her attorney. I wrote on the situation from this angle because I think there's a lot to the termination part of the story (the core part, no doubt) that has yet to come to light. Without the facts of the case in that regard, it would've been irresponsible to opine with details either assumed or disregarded.

I quite agree that this is not a matter of mere disagreement between two groups, each trying to assert its moral superiority over another. What I want the reader and protester to understand is this: You simply cannot impugn another person or group for taking a moral stance and acting in accordance with that stance unless that moral standard is faulty, and it does no good to judge another's actions by your own moral standard... unless there is objective truth and your moral standard is truly superior to their standard. That's why I (and commenter Strunk D) have been trying to get some of the other commenters here to logically make the case that their morality is superior to Belmont's.

We may (or may not) disagree over the superiority of different elements of our respective moral standards, but we agree that there is truth and a standard by which all things can be judged. Several other commenters seem to miss the contradiction in their own comments when they say, in essence, This isn't about moral standards, it's about what's right and wrong!

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Strunk D — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:59:09 -0000

Aren't civil rights inherently moral? And if it is about civil rights, why do you say so? Just because you rhetorically position civil rights and morality as divergent things doesn't make them so. Making a claim to a civil right is a moral manuever, to be sure.....

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Tony Youngblood — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:57:46 -0000

First, thank you for taking the time to articulate your thoughts on this matter.

I am an atheist with a small "a" and a secular humanist in life outlook. As such, I hold that my ethical code should always be amenable to change, in the light of new evidence. That, however, is a far cry from a moral relativistic point of view which might very well say something like what you claim the protesters believe:

"No one belief is more righteous than another, and that’s really the only right way to think about such things."

While the relativist believes all opinions are equally truthful, I hold that the truth is out there -- regardless of my opinion of it. As Sam Harris eloquently states in his book "The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Help Determine Human Values," we can use science to help determine the correct moral course of action. So I am in a way agreeing with you. This is a matter of two moral/ethical codes butting heads. And one is glaringly wrong.

To say that it's simply two sides disconnecting over moral issues is to disarm the issue, throw one's hands up and sigh, "you say potato. . ." But ethical decisions should be argued over, mulled, researched, and decided using the scope of our current understanding of the world. We know that our morals are better than those of Nazi Germany. We know that it is wrong to abuse children. To quote Sam Harris:

"We already have very good reasons to believe that mistreating children is bad for everyone. I think it is important for us to admit that this is not a claim about our personal preferences, or merely something our culture has conditioned us to believe. It is a claim about the architecture of our minds and the social architecture of our world. Moral truths of this kind must find their place in any scientific understanding of human experience."

http://www.amazon.com/Moral-La...

We also know that we should not discriminate based on gender, skin color, sexual orientation, or gender identity. There are many countries where females are treated as second class citizens. Young women are ostracized . . . or worse. . . physical assaulted if they try to get an education. I think we can all agree that our morals are superior on this point. Civil rights should also apply to sexual orientation and gender identity, and I support measures to make current U.S. civil rights laws extend to these issues.

Imagine that you're a staff member of a university whose programs are well respected in the secular community. The school's enrollment advertising touts its top-rated programs and plays down its Christian roots. Students of all religions, ethnic backgrounds, and sexual identities attend for the excellent secular education. You try to live your life openly and honestly and engage discrimination wherever you find it. For this, you are shown the door. You are told you actively promoting a life of sin. If you continue on your path, you will burn forever in hell. Many of your students who are facing some very serious questions about their own identity are robbed of your positive influence. The financial backers of your institution want ignorance, superstition, blind faith, and the morals from a 2000 year old book to dictate your school's ethical system. They seek to chain the university to the wall and prevent it from fully developing into the respected secular institution it so wants to be. As the fired faculty member, all you have is the way you feel and the backing of modern science. Not faith, but evidence. Make no mistake, this IS a question of competing morals. And Belmont University's morals are clearly and utterly inferior.

Tony Youngblood

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Strunk D — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 22:57:10 -0000

Then on what basis do you claim that you are right and anyone else is wrong if you are not in fact attempting to be morally superior?

In other words, why are you right? In your earlier response, you merely appeal to what you think is a universally held moral assumption. I don't disagree with that premise, but I'm curious as to why you think you are right. My guess is that you and I arrive at the same conclusion about human dignity based on different moral assumptions......

If you ever think you are right and someone else is wrong (and lest we bog down in relativism, that's absolutely what you are doing: Belmont is wrong and gay civil rights are in the right), then you are claiming some sense of moral superiority. And since ALL of us do this in practicality (all of us make moral claims), then the answer isn't to say we don't have moral claims but to weigh moral claims on the basis of their own content and merit.

So, again, WHY are you right and Belmont is wrong? Give me a syllogism and not a slogan. I might not disagree with you. I'm just thoroughly unimpressed by your logic.

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Thomas — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 21:33:16 -0000

Absolutely not. This has nothing to do with morals and to claim I'm exerting any type of superiority by virtue of my statement that all people are equal, is just absurd.

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Thomas — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 21:30:49 -0000

I guess the problem is you're asking me to prove what I can only describe as a universal truth; that all people are created equal. It blows my mind that anyone could even consider that to not be the case, especially someone who claims to be religious.

Let's pretend that there are no laws against discrimination and that instead of being gay, this coach was fired for being female, or black, or over 60, or blind. I certainly hope we can agree all of those situations would be wrong. So now I pose your question to you, with those scenarios.

How would you defend their policy of discriminating against women (or any of the others)? Because that's what you're asking me to do. I believe that all people are equal regardless of their sexual orientation. It's not a matter of "my way is better than your way", it's a matter of treating people equally because the gender you're attracted to doesn't make you better than someone else who feels differently.

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Strunk D — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:30:36 -0000

Thomas is exerting moral superiority over Kevin when he says:

"But I cannot answer the question you posed because it's not a valid question. It's not about moral standard at all, mine or the university's. It's about basic civil rights and I believe we're all equal."

Where does Thomas get such reasons to believe in basic civil rights and universal human equality? And while I believe such things, what has that to do with employment? And even if we aren't talking about employment, why is Thomas' standard better than anyone else's?

Thomas, you simply must admit your presuppositions. You are appealing to an absolute standard that isn't provable. And though I may agree with your presuppositions and premise, I disagree with the syllogism you construct and find your conclusions faulty.

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Kevin Smith — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 19:20:51 -0000

Also, it's hard to miss that you refused to answer the question at the end of the post because you deny that it's a question of moral standard at all... only to follow it in the next sentence by stating your moral position with the implication that your position on the matter is more valid.

So to ask more specifically: why is your belief—the belief that as a matter of civil rights, a lesbian working at a private educational institution, one which specifically forbids such a lifestyle, should be immune to termination due to her homosexuality and that to deny the claim is tantamount to a denial of full personhood for the individual in question—why is your belief more valid than Belmont's?

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

@txmere — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 17:41:31 -0000

Well said, Thomas. And EVula, I get what you're saying. But I read something rather interesting regarding someone else's experience with their hiring practices and as a result, it's hard not to see it as a bait-and-switch.

http://tinycatpants.wordpress....

What's troubling isn't that Belmont isn't sticking its fingers in its ears and saying, "La la la, I can't hear you!" They seem to be well aware of the homosexual community on its campus and at the helm of its classrooms. But they seem to value lying over gayness. Either being gay is a problem for Belmont or it's not. They just need to make up their minds.

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Kevin Smith — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 16:26:09 -0000

I'm glad you feel a passionate need to engage. Whether or not I agree with a person's views, I think it's a valuable thing to engage the culture and be a part of the community in which he or she lives. (But hey, that's just my worldview.)

I'm aware that she was fired for being gay, and I didn't think I glossed over that fact. I'll admit that my post isn't conclusive, but it wasn't intended to be. I'll also admit that I've not followed every detail that's happened here. If Belmont has been intentionally deceptive about anything, those sins aren't made irrelevant merely by comparison to another.

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

EVula — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:39:57 -0000

Public transportation is very, very different from a private institution. The government (the "public" part) discriminating based on arbitrary factors (such as race or orientation) is different than a private institution enforcing its own rules of behavior (despite the fact that many people, both of us included, strongly disagree with those rules).

Actually, the only debate here lies in the "ethical expectation" contract that Coach Howe signed. (which I'll readily admit that I haven't read, so I'm handling this situation as a hypothetical) If she agreed to abide by certain conditions and she failed to do so, Belmont is entirely within their purview to terminate her employment. End of story. (equally possible: what she signed didn't cover anything that's transpired, in which case yes, Belmont really *is* just being an ass here)

Do I, personally, think that it's bullshit that she was fired for, effectively, being gay? Absolutely. Do I think this is a civil rights matter? No. *If* she agreed to follow rules (however draconian they may seem to you or I) and then didn't, there's not much reason to be upset.

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Thomas — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 15:18:48 -0000

I could not disagree more and I cannot remain quiet, lest visitors to your site think you somehow represent the views of everyone in this great city. For starters, it's been made very clear that she was fired for being gay. You can spin that all you want in an attempt to make Belmont look better, but the reality is she was fired. She was fired and Belmont lied about it twice and as of right now have still not told the truth about what happened. Speaking of that, where is your paragraph blasting Belmont for the sin of lying?

The basis of your argument is that it's "one group of people insisting that their moral standard is better than the university’s moral standard". Believing that some people are not equal to others is not a "moral standard", it's bigotry plain and simple. Firing an exemplary employee because of that bigotry is, sadly, still legal in Tennessee, but that certainly doesn't make it right.

Clearly I disagree with Belmont's decision, or the mutual decision, or non-decision, or whatever their explanation is today. But I cannot answer the question you posed because it's not a valid question. It's not about moral standard at all, mine or the university's. It's about basic civil rights and I believe we're all equal.

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

Starina27 — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 14:28:20 -0000

Should blacks also sit at the back of the bus? This isn't about morality, it's basic CIVIL RIGHTS!

Re: Belmont and the Lesbian Soccer Coach

David Cintron — Wed, 08 Dec 2010 12:40:13 -0000

Well said sir.

Re: “Why does it have to point to God?”

Kevin Smith — Wed, 29 Sep 2010 10:26:44 -0000

Since the basis for our argument was that truth is real and objective because God is the standard and source of truth, it only made sense to then support that proposition with a quick proof that God exists. One of the reasons I included the aside in this post was to get at what I assumed was the underlying reason for questioning truth. Of course, I could be wrong; it might be my friend's friend is struggling with pain and evil in the world. At any rate, entire volumes have been written on this stuff, so while Twitter was a terrible medium for this sort of discussion, a single blog post fares only slightly better.

(By the by, I'd used the term "objective truth" in an effort to clarify for the sake of those reading through cultural specs. I've reworded the post to provide some clarity there.)

Re: “Why does it have to point to God?”

David Strunk — Sun, 26 Sep 2010 23:35:46 -0000

Kevin,
You do a great job appealing to the Design and Moral arguments for the existence of God, but it might not be the best tack to take in the "truth" department. There's a lot of good arguments to be made for truth before one makes an argument for God. Schaeffer's book "The God Who is There" might be a good place to start here instead.

(aside: truth, by its nature, is objective and absolute. "objective truth" is redundant and "relative truth" is contradictory.)

Don't neglect St. Anselm's argument for the existence of God- the ontological argument. Read up on it. It might have more progress with your friend.

Re: The Transformative Gospel

dave strunk — Mon, 23 Aug 2010 14:56:52 -0000

Yepper depper.
1) View 1- There's no lifeboat or precarious situation, we just need to choose for God. Promoted by Pelagius.
2) View 2- We are drowning and need that lifeboat. Semi-pelagian- promoted by John Cassian.
3) View 3- We are dead. We need a life-giver. This view has the advantage of being biblical (I mean the words are right there in Romans and Ephesians), and Protestant. Woo Gospel. Woo Protestant articulation of said Gospel.

Re: Words Don’t Matter.

Kevin Smith — Mon, 16 Aug 2010 13:32:56 -0000

I think you're still missing the point. The difference between red and blue is mere stylistic preference, and as I said before, I left all stylistic criticisms out of my review when it did not pertain to manipulation of the audience. Criticizing a red painting because I wished it were blue is not the same as criticizing an intentionally misleading message for having its facts wrong. Neither a red nor blue painting carries any moral weight. Neither make truth claims. The red painting doesn't beckon the observer to change his life and crusade against entire industries; it would hardly be worth the focus of even a blog post.

Leaving aside your strange claim that most documentaries are propagandist in nature—I would agree that feature film documentaries largely do fit the bill, but I would also argue they aren't really documentaries because of the very malpractice that makes them propaganda—it's hard to believe anyone could watch that documentary and not come to the conclusion that its purpose was to change a person's mind. It even offers an explicit call to action at the end. I simply take it to task for exactly what it claims to be: a film-based presentation of facts, of a "reality" you didn't know existed. But the film flat out lies to create that reality, so how can its portrayal be trusted? Were you to find out a close friend were a compulsive liar (as I have in the past), would you not suddenly become wary of everything he or she claimed unless you otherwise knew it to be true?

Again, it simply makes no sense to urge someone to look for the good in a film which has been shown to play fast and loose with the facts. The film presents itself as all "good." How is the viewer to know the difference?

Re: Words Don’t Matter.

Daniel Myers — Sun, 15 Aug 2010 23:49:55 -0000

Hey Kevin,

I agree with your statements here, our words are extremely important. Also, despite your perception to the contrary, I also believe that Truth is of utmost importance to our lives.

Sorry I never got back to you on that last post, frankly, when I read your response I just didn’t have the time to compose a response to all those issues at the time and I just forgot about it afterward.

However, I will respond briefly to my reference in this post. When it comes to Food Inc., the movie is propaganda for sure. That’s a given. I slipped a little too far into playing Devil’s Advocate when I was writing before, I wasn’t writing to defend the movie as much as to point out that I didn’t like your method of criticism.

I still think you took a piece of work, and criticized if for not being something it wasn’t supposed to be to begin with. It’s like criticizing a red painting for not being blue, well, the artist didn’t want it to be blue. You can say that you would like it better if it were blue not red, but that’s your opinion, it has nothing to do with the “goodness” of the painting.

Food Inc., is a propaganda film (like most documentaries). You can dislike it, and disagree with it. I’m sure most of the “facts” in it are controversial at best (at this point I haven’t seen them film in 6 months and don’t remember most of it anyway).

That said, lot’s of good arguments get drug through the mud sometimes, be careful not to fear any good that comes from the imperfect. We are all imperfect, and more relevant to this point we all have flawed motives. When I hear an issue, I want to hear all sides, and take the good from wherever I find it.

Re: The Meaning in a Certain Bumper Sticker

Dave Strunk — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:52:33 -0000

Thanks for the shout out, bro-ski. Great post and great thoughts. Welcome to the world of always thinking about everything in a philosophical world and thinking about how you might blog about it. :)

Re: The Meaning in a Certain Bumper Sticker

Dave Strunk — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 18:52:29 -0000

Thanks for the shout out, bro-ski. Great post and great thoughts. Welcome to the world of always thinking about everything in a philosophical world and thinking about how you might blog about it. :)

Re: The New Blog

Kevin Smith — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:18:59 -0000

Thanks, Frank!

Re: The New Blog

Kevin Smith — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 23:18:41 -0000

Thanks, Frank!

Re: The New Blog

Frank R. — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 21:20:32 -0000

You are definitely an exceptional writer and thinker. My current employment has me sitting at a desk with a computer and internet. With business slow, I often find myself looking through news, blogs and pretty much anything to keep myself entertained. After reading your post regarding food, inc, I was amazed. While I agree on your point of view, I never could present such a cohesive "attack" as you did. Your rebuttle to the commenter was right on target as well. In my opinion, you have two qualities that set you apart from 99% of bloggers.

1) Mastery, of the process, of converting thoughts & ideas to ink and paper.
2) Independant Thought. Very few people in this day and age, especially younger, question anything anymore.

Keep up the great writing and posts!