Human History is Mostly an endless TELL of what NOT to do...

Our moral sensitivity about good versus evil on various actions didn’t come to us via tradition, revealed religion, our taste buds, the desire of our eyes, or some personal quirk, and certainly not from human instinct or matter and energy.

Moral concern, moral realism, is a transcendent “ought,” not a subjective “like” or “dislike.”

When it comes to the moral compass we are talking objective, transcendent truth. (Well, many humans are).

Other millions of modern people claim that morals, like personal preferences, are subjective, relative whether of the individual or a group or a nation.

But I wouldn’t characterize my own moral struggles of the last 67 years as battling over what I like or dislike. For instance, I like salmon, but can’t stand cow tongue (which I was required to eat as a kid growing up in Nebraska because we got over half a cow each year from our grandfather, and had to eat even the rubbery tongue and the gross tail). To each his own, when it comes to “like.”

In contrast, immoral actions (and attitudes) such as slavery, war, torture, molestation, rape, inequality, oppression, prejudice, greed, lust, promiscuity, jealousy, gossip, theft, lying, dishonesty, porn, obscenity, profanity, coveting, jealousy, selfishness, egotism, gossip, human sacrifice, cannibalism…most people will agree, (at least when these actions are done to them) that they are wrong.

In most cases of human moral choice, humans of the present generation don’t need to reinvent the moral wheel of truth. We’ve had the basics of moral realism since the some society’s early bronze age rules, and the Jewish 10 Commandments,
since Buddhism’s moral precepts, since Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, 1 Corinthians 13, James, and many other passages from other holy books for thousands of years!
Where is the failing then?

In the carrying out of the moral truths, in the applying of the truths we expect others to observe in how we ourselves behave.

True sometimes, our moral blindness leads us astray such as when the Christian leader Robert E. Lee, for instance, spoke of how we should love our enemies as Christ said, yet was himself largely responsible for hundreds of thousands of humans being slaughtered, and many hundreds of thousands being wounded (and by devout Christians in the North who refused to let Southerners secede)!

What was their excuse?

Lee did this in defense against the invading army, the Union forces who invaded his state, his county, his home (even stealing family treasures).

Or when Christian Americans slaughter nearly half a million human civilians and declare this justified!

Or when Christian manufacturers put Bible verses on the barrel of assault guns which are used to kill others! Or when...

Or when ‘revealed religious leaders state that they should love their enemies personally, but that they ought to hate and destroy their enemies for God and country.

Yes, there are multi millions of cases back through religious histories including creedal Christian history which show humans of good will who violated the most basic of moral laws because they did it in the name of Jesus or...

And then there plenty of modern secular leaders who claim there are no moral truths.

In contrast, there are flawed moral leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who state moral law is transcendent (fMLK—"I’m here to say to you this morning that some things are right and some things are wrong. Yes, eternally so, absolutely so. It’s wrong to hate. Yes, That’s right. It always has been wrong and it always will be wrong. (Amen) It’s wrong in America, it’s wrong in Germany, it’s wrong in Russia, it’s wrong in China. It was wrong in 2000 B.C., and it’s wrong in 1954 A.D. It always has been wrong, (That’s right) and it always will be wrong.

"(That’s right) It’s wrong to throw our lives away in riotous living. (Yeah) No matter if everybody in Detroit is doing it, it’s wrong. (Yes) It always will be wrong, and it always has been wrong. It’s wrong in every age and it’s wrong in every nation. Some things are right and some things are wrong, no matter if everybody is doing the contrary. Some things in this universe are absolute….And so long as we adopt this relative attitude toward right and wrong, we’re revolting against the very laws of God himself. (Amen)… This universe hinges on moral foundations… God has made the universe to be based on a moral law.” from “Rediscovering Lost Values”)

How can we know--prove--for sure that some actions are inherently evil, some transcendently good?

We can’t, unfortunately. We can’t prove the truth of moral realism. We can’t know. Not in the sense of factuality such as that 1,000 plus 1,000 equals 2,000 or in the sense that we can verify that the earth is a sphere, not a flat land.

In fact, even more disconcertingly, there is some experiential evidence which seems to deny the truth of moral realism.

But (with the exception of some hard Atheists, some Augustinian-Reformed and Islamic leaders), the vast majority of humans at present do think slavery is inherently evil—that the claim and act of “owning” another human being as a tool, as an object (rather than a person with inherent worth) is very immoral. Such an institution as slavery denies equality. But we need to keep in mind that for thousands of years equality wasn’t considered truth. Even as recently as 150 years ago famous Calvinist theologians such as R.L. Dabney wrote extensively (even after the Civil War ended!) showing that there was nothing wrong with slavery.

Furthermore, secular leaders and scientists have long held that “equality” doesn’t exist in nature, that existence is based on “survival,” this most famously stated in the theory of natural selection.

Simply observe how cats treat birds or what happens when dogs, even on leases spot each other in the street—seldom any equality. It’s usually about power, not sharing.

Even in the Jewish Bible the law emphasized that if an owner of a slave beats his slave so the slave dies a couple of days later, there is to be no punishment of the owner because the slave was his “property” Exodus 21:20-21 NAB

And the Torah emphasizes that a Hebrew slave owner has the right to pass slaves down to his kids (Leviticus 25:44-46 HCSB. But what then?

If there is no basis for objective ethics in nature and religious books often give the wrong answers, how do we go about living morally?

We discover and moral truth in a way like a tiny coral lives atop a coral reef:-)

In this existence we billions of human primates are but small finite coral on a great barrier coral reef which holds back the onslaught of Nature’s typhoon rampages, human instinctive desires bloated by selfishness and pride.

Deism, Fundamentalism, Friends-Brethren, key Scriptural passages on moral realism in such as 1 Corinthians 13, the Sermon on the Mount, James, etc.

Of course, this coral reef perception/awareness isn’t always upward and beautiful. As cited above, spiritual blindness can mislead us such as when Christians over the centuries have slaughtered millions of other humans in the name of Jesus Christ (such as when creedal Roman Catholic Bernard of C., who was known as the speaker of love called on Catholics to slaughter in the name of Jesus and when Martin Luther called on the princes to kill, slay, and “wash their hands in the peasants’ blood.” And, when most Christian leaders burned heretics at the stake, etc.

And, currently when “born-again evangelical Christians” advocate immoral actions in the name of politics which are contrary to Jesus’ clear moral truths. Still, over all in every generation, some humans do experience the blessed hope of moral realism and share moral good actions and oppose all the immoral and unjust actions.

Let’s take a more specific look at the issue of equality and how I ended up, a tiny living coral in the early 1950’s coming to a strong stand for equality, even though so many millions of Christians during that time actually were very against equality. And, even today in the 21st century the Russian Orthodox Church opposes human equality and justify the slaughter of innocent Ukrainian civilians!

It’s all about looking backward down the reef of moral realism.

Secondly, this question is one of theodicy, too.

We could ask why God didn’t supply humans with accurate moral guidance from the beginning some 200,000 years ago?

But then, God. also didn’t give us knowledge of disease and how to overcome it, and thus protect billions of humans from excruciating deaths in epidemics such as the Black Plague.

For whatever reason, God requires us human primates to seek, and study, and find solutions on our own. Moral realism is a ‘coral reef’ experience to be sought with reason, experience, intuition, and history.

Like Martin Luther King pointed out, “I refuse to accept despair as the final response to the ambiguities of history. I refuse to accept the idea that the 'isness' of man's present nature makes him morally incapable of reaching up for the eternal 'oughtness' that forever confronts him.”

In the LIGHT,
Daniel Wilcox

In this time of protesters demeaning and harming police, here's a new song by Coffey Anderson - Back The Blue (Official Audio)

Part 3: The Removal of Public History--Defenses, Objections, Alternatives

Probably many people will find my article objecting to the removal of signatures and images (after 1906) at El Morro Rock National Monument a rather picky criticism over a minor change by the U.S. Government.

(Notice in the following photo where squares of rock have been smoothed, post-1906 signatures or images removed.)

And, besides, don't nearly all of us object to the defacing of homes and businesses by gang graffiti?!

Is there any difference between (possible examples) some young cowboy's branding image in 1911 or the signature by a Great War soldier in 1918 or the scrawled name by a young teen when his folks stopped here on their southwestern vacation in 1921
VERSUS
the signatures of a famous Spanish conquistador such as Don Juan de Ornate in 1605, or Western Explorers, or U.S. soldiers including a future Confederate leader, Breckenridge, or by Sarah Fox, a Wagon Train 12-year-old girl in 1858?

Well, yes and no.

I suppose given the nature of human beings, our sense of ethics, order, art and history and public knowledge that governments often need to make somewhat arbitrary judgments when it comes to its public places.

There are reasons given, some of them valid, some invalid, some inconsequential. For instance, consider the legality and illegality on a different topic. In the 1970's, the U.S. Government suddenly instituted the 55 mile an hour speed limit on the nation's highways. This occurred and remained in effect for over 20 years. Various reasons were given for the ruling including as a way of dealing with the 70's oil price hikes of Middle Eastern Nations and as a way to reduce auto accidents, in other words a way of safety.

Yet the federal law was repealed by Congress in 1995. Now on my recent trips, I regularly not only encountered speed allowances of 75 on major Interstates, there were also ones of even 80 miles per hour in Nevada and Utah, and 75 on narrow county roads in Texas! Etc.

Indeed, the nuances and bases of legality versus illegality vary from time to time depending on which facts are valued the most. And the rules of governments don't necessarily reflect moral truth or even good sense.

But one objection to graffiti is that it is crass, intrusive, and defacing.

graffiti: "usually unauthorized writing or drawing on a public surface"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graffiti

etymology: "1851, "ancient wall inscriptions found in the ruins of Pompeii," from Italian graffiti, plural of graffito "a scribbling," a diminutive formation from graffio "a scratch or scribble," from graffiare "to scribble," ultimately from Greek graphein "to scratch, draw, write" (see -graphy). They are found in many ancient places, but the habit was especially popular among the Romans. Sense extended 1877 to recently made crude drawings and scribbling in public places."
https://www.etymonline.com/word/graffiti

However, as the etymology of the very word states, this sort of human activity has been going on for thousands of years. Indeed, archaeologists have discovered Roman soldiers' graffiti in Jerusalem from the time of Jesus and saved it, protected as worthy for public history!

And, it's not like that Onate's markings, those of the a Spanish conquistador and Governor of New Mexico, were significantly different than those of ancient Roman soldiers or even of modern at-risk youths carving their names or images or group identities into public places.

Notice in his signature that Onate carved right over an ancient Native American petrogyph!

Yet he could have signed his name anywhere on thousands of acres of blank massive rock.
Why did he deface the historical Native American's image?

Most likely because he didn't think that Native American images were important. As a Spanish leader he would have thought that Native Americans themselves were insignificant. He might have even done it intentionally to establish his territorial claim, like a male cat leaving his mark.

After all, Onate was an invader. And he brought a thousand Mexicans to settle this confiscated land that actually belonged to the Pueblo Native Americans and had for centuries before he and other Spaniards had conquered it.

Stacia Spragg, Associated Presss








What of some of the other actual signatures, unlike Onate's that didn't ride herd over ancient art?

Are they in their own way worthy to be considered art, more than mere doodling?

Yes, some of the inscriptions at El Morro Rock are very elegant and beautiful such as E. Pen Long's, true works of art.

https://www.americansouthwest.net/new_mexico/el-morro/national-monument.html

But other old markings at El Morro are unclear, even some may have been idle scratches or hastily marked territory claims no different than disdained modern graffiti.
I still remember one day after a day of teaching students, discovering WP carved into one of my classroom's wood book cases in Santa Maria, California. I was not a happy educator at the time, though even then, I realized the seeming innate need of human beings to leave their mark.

ALTERNATIVES:

Here is a nuanced view of a professor of anthropology:
Should the National Parks repeal its prohibition of new inscriptions?

"Doing so might revive a more vibrant, living kind of history at the monument, a history in which we participate as active agents, an open-ended history that is not yet finished or determined. Visitors might even glean a more authentic understanding of the experiences of those who passed by this very same place long ago.(28)

"And who is to say that the name of someone who died 300 years ago is more important than my name, or my child's?

"Allowing new inscriptions would certainly result in the loss of older ones (the monument receives 35,000 visitors a year), but such loss happened in the past, is inevitable in the future, and could be mitigated through documentation.

"So what policies and practices would I recommend instead? First of all, I am not suggesting that the park service repeal its prohibition of new inscriptions.
"Still, the prohibition makes sense to me, and I am glad that we can still see all those engravings from the past. Not only are the inscriptions interesting, they can teach us something about people who came before us and the history of the Southwest.

"Happily, the park service has provided two boulders outside of the visitor center and a sign that reads, "Carve your initials on this typical piece of local sandstone, if you must—but please remember: it is against the law to carve anything on Inscription Rock itself!"(29) Visitors can also "inscribe" their names in the monument's registry.”
from History, Preservation, and Power at El Morro National Monument: Toward a Self-Reflexive Interpretive Practice
by Thomas H. Guthrie, Assistant Professor of Anthropology at Guilford College in Greensboro, North Carolina.
https://www.nps.gov/crmjournal/winter2010/article2.html
--

I didn't see the 2 boulders at the visitor center where anyone can inscribe their names.
But if that is still true, it is an excellent example of what the Park Service ought to do, ought to keep doing.

Providing an alternative for present day inscribing, as the professor Guthrie emphasizes, is not only a positive alternative to the negative of prohibition of Federal law, it creates new history for future visitors.

Consider how, especially, teens might not be enthralled most history, by some long-ago Spanish conquistador called Onate, but they might find identity with a teen from their own city who had carved his or her name 50 years before in 2019!

We live briefly in this stream of conscious history, then we die. Hopefully, we can leave behind memorable actions and creations.

But how important are even mere scratchings of the least important human being.

In the Light,

Dan Wilcox

Prof. James F. McGrath: "Never lose site of the humanity of the oppressor..."

--

Tolstoy on the Question, Should Humans Eat as Vegetarians?

Let us move toward a healthy, kind, nourishing life-enhancing way of eating and living,

Daniel Wilcox

Please Move Away from Killing Sentient Animals

Please consider moving away from meat consumption for getting your necessary daily protein.

Take a look at this informative video on the cruelty of humankind's current high level of animal killing for food:

ALWAYS define terms, carefully, first!

AronRa, a strongly convinced atheist, has created a number of powerful YouTube videos explaining why theism is a delusion.

BUT what is strange and baffling is that I, a strongly convinced theist, actually, agree with a fairly large number of his central points!

For instance, I completely agree with AronRa's opposition to "creationism" being taught in public schools. The religious concept is a delusion! It has been proven over and over by countless scientific evidence that earth wasn't created about 6-10,000 years ago.

Creationism is fallacious, anti-scientific and contrary to biology, genetics, anthropology, physics, etc.

As a former teacher, it deeply troubles me that millions of Americans still call for "creationism" in its various forms to be an option in public education! And that the government of Turkey has decided to eliminate the teaching of evolution in its schools!
Etc.

In one of AranRa's almost humorous, tongue-twisting, exact phrases he states that his atheism represents--
"secular, humanist, skeptical, rational, scientifically literate, intellectual..."

Without going into a lot of detail, based upon AronRa's videos it appears that I am by his definitions--
secular
humanist
skeptical

rational
scientifically literate
intellectual
!

So, then exactly how is it that he and I have completely different central worldviews and lifestances toward reality?

According to his central definitions of atheism, theism, and religion, I am an "atheist"!
(This isn't all that new. In 2017, a number of atheists claimed that I was really an "atheist."
At about the same time, a famous Christian leader emphasized--as no doubt many others would--that I was NEVER a Christian in my 55 years as a devout, dedicated Christian, not even when I was a liberal Baptist youth minister, elder, mission worker, Bible teacher, etc.)

YET, I am intellectually convinced theist.

HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?!

Here's one example of why definitions of terms are vital.

One point I especially appreciate about AronRa is that he, carefully, explicitly defines his words, even in his short popular videos.

Consider this:
"Anti-theist Answers to Slick Questions" by AronRa
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6qRT6MjjSs

1. How do you define atheism?

"Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity...
“a deity being defined as a magical anthropomorphic immortal”
--AronRa

Lightwaveseeker (my response):

Baffling! Confusing and Bemusing.

In at least 61 years of my 70-year-life, I NEVER believed in "a magical, anthropomorphic immortal."

What I believed before I was about 7 or 9 years of age, I don't remember, but probably whatever I was told by my parents, others, and books. All I do remember is having been born with a "why" in my throat, always asking questions about life, until it often drove my parents to tell me to stop asking, to just accept...

That I refused to do.

However, by the time I was about 9 years of age, when I often tried to conceive of "God," I thought of God as like oxygen--real, invisible, everywhere, and necessary for life:-)

To my knowledge, as a child, I NEVER thought God was "magical,"
and NEVER thought God was "anthropomorphic,"
and certainly didn't think so as a teen, a university student, a thinker, mental health worker, educator, etc.

If one defines theism as belief in "a magical anthropomorphic immortal," then I've never been a theist as long as I've been a thinking, questioning, doubting seeker.

Of course, most of my adult life I have viewed "God" as defined by Merriam-Webster Collegiate Dictionary in its opening definition:
God "1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality:"

I don't recall ever using the term "immortal" to describe "u.r.", however, I did think the ultimate nature of reality was everlasting or eternal, which are synonyms of "immortal."

So in the last word, guilty as charged.

AronRa also thinks there are moral absolutes, that there are human rights, and so forth.

Heck, AronRa and Lightwaveseeker have a lot more in common than one would first suppose.

Wonders never cease;-)

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Doss: Conscientious Objector, Medic, Medal of Honor Winner

from the TIME Review by Eliza Berman:

"Doss, a Seventh-Day Adventist who refused to bear arms but enlisted as a medic in the U.S. army, is on the battlefield on Okinawa in the spring of 1945."

"Armed with nothing but a bible, he’s carrying his wounded comrades to safety, one by one, through enemy fire,
repeatedly beseeching God to “help me get one more.”

http://time.com/4539373/hacksaw-ridge-movie-true-story/


'He would spend more than five years after the war being treated for his wounds, losing a lung to tuberculosis. Because of his injuries, he was never able to work full-time, and he devoted the rest of his life to working with his church."

--

Thanks to ALL the veterans who sought to protect and save
those who were oppressed,
and especially the young men who wouldn't kill,
but who rescued
and saved as many of the suffering that they could.

The conscientious objector and medic Desmond Doss was one of these protectors.

He refused to kill, became a medic and rescued many wounded Americans, including 50-100 off a tall cliff.

And our hearts go out to the millions of young men who have been sent off
to wrong wars,
to unjust wars,
caught between bad politics
and moral questions.



In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Whose Land?

Whose Land Is Palestine/Israel? Who Does It Belong To? This Land Is Mine

This Land Is Mine from Nina Paley on Vimeo.

Please check out the very important political/historical animation by Nina Paley.