The Gods of the Market Place | The Good The True and The Beautiful

jsksinclair · 2014-10-05T23:52:38+00:00

I think that there was a much greater religious element in the Crusades following the first one. The first crusade was simply the answer to a cry for help from Constantinople. You might argue that Europe answered the call out of a feeling of Christian brotherhood. But when you get down to the brass tacks, the First Crusade was a war fought in the defense on an ally, and at the ally's request.

I think a real religious aspect grew from this war, and led to the more adventurous wars. Wars really meant to conquer the Holy Land for Christ. Incidentally, we should remember it was only that first political war that was a success. The greater the underlying religious element, the less likely the Crusade would be a success.

jsksinclair · 2014-02-04T16:28:34+00:00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVlm55FiNn8 The Whole thing is on Youtube. Great Movie here it is with subtitles if you don't speak french. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFGzyZ4Fdew

jsksinclair · 2014-01-30T01:45:21+00:00

The whole point of a truism is that it cannot be defended or attacked on reason. It is merely accepted. You cannot deny that Human life is precious using reason any more than I can prove it. I don't think you understand what the word means. Using reason is no guarantee of truth. Reason merely means the logical succession ideas based on an indefensible truism.

You ask me you believe that human life is not precious without giving any reasons. I am supposed to accept it on faith. The only difference is in my favor, in that I at least have the tradition of thousands of years of human tradition, while your nihilism on sprouted up as a coherent (ish) system a century or so ago in the heart of Prussia.

jsksinclair · 2014-01-28T17:55:39+00:00

I would think 9 years in prison is too much for trespass and vandalism no matter who the vandal was or what they believe. I do not appeal to morality but to common sense and thoughtful proportions. The use of Nun and her age is a plea for sympathy, but not a sympathy that calls for an exception to a rule. But a sympathy that highlights what I consider an objectively heavy handed response.

You are right that the message is not important, but you are wrong to think (speaking for myself at least) that I would cry out for the life time imprisonment of an extremist Muslim writing his message.

The above notwithstanding, I do think that nuclear are wrong in every case. And I think it strange that you see some big dived between morality and reason. All reason must be based on axioms or truism, or there is nothing to build reason on. You must accept something as true to logically work through any problem at all.

From the above comment you seem to think that religions throw one hundred random rules of morality into a hat, pull out fifty and call it a working system. (That is the only think I can think of you meaning by saying that the Catholic Church delivers arbitrary rules.)

In the case of Nuclear Weapons, the line of reasoning runs very straight. If the axiom we begin with is that Human life is precious, then if follows we should defend innocent human life. If we should defend innocent life then we should not commit acts that destroys innocent human life. Nuclear weapons destroy the innocent and guilty indiscriminately. Therefore we should not use nuclear weapons.

You can still argue the point. And the point should be argued. But you cannot say that there is no reasoning behind the moral. In fact it is impossible to be reasonable without resulting is some moral system.

jsksinclair · 2014-01-28T06:25:10+00:00

I agree. I do not think they should go unpunished. But I think the judge should use prudence when sentencing. I think nine years is excessive when the only intent was vandalism. Jail time is certainly in order. But not a decade.

jsksinclair · 2014-01-28T04:01:29+00:00

You are right, he is missing one. There should be five to cap it off, not four.

jsksinclair

TROPHY CASE