Moral Compas

 

In the 1950s, some parents were aghast at the music their kids listened to.  Immoral or improper.  Other parents were beside themselves over their kids being romantically involved with people of a different skin tone - this caused more anxiety and anger than music or much else.  Some parents felt it was a sign of decline that their kids would wear revealing or tight fitting clothing, smoke, or drink - all of it was a sign of some great collapse.  It didn't happen.  They all grew up and became pretty conservative as parents (mostly).  Looking back it would seem to be more about social compass or legal compass or cultural compass or racial compass - one is not required to be okay with their children dating anyone - its not a moral requirement to be okay with anything.  

A moral question  would be abortion - that does fall into the realm of morality.  No where in the New Testament does it say you cannot date someone of another faith or culture or race.  It does have a couple references about life.  

Recognizing this as a moral question does not mean one should judge, for none of us are free of sin and should leave judging to one who is free of sin.  We can however express our opinion and what the Bible says and argue why.  More than that becomes problematic.  We are not loved by God because we are free of sin, but regardless of sin.  People have free will, can choose their path, and sometimes we make terrible mistakes that end up spiraling into problems that we cannot imagine a path to freedom.  That is for the person and God to sort out - not me.

You can be a bright person - a PhD in Physics and make that tragic mistake, and you have to live with it for the rest of your life.  Making that mistake is not a thought out process - it is purely emotional because of the immediacy of the issues involved.  It differs from other moral issues ...

Swastikas, star of David, smashed mezuzahs, taunts and threats - I don't understand.  The world experienced this behavior 80 years ago, and has lived it ever since, and yet some people simply do not understand how it all relates.  It doesn't require a PhD nor is it a tragic mistake ... it is a broken moral compass.  Whoever the people are, and whatever they may believe - is a sign of someone who has a moral compass that is fundamentally not in line with the compass of civilized and moral people.  It isn't the same as dating someone from another race, nor about the tragic mistake of an abortion - it doesn't require any formal education to understand the impact hat behavior has on the person doing the actions and on society as a whole.  

These amoral or immoral individuals come from a variety of backgrounds - one is a Christian background, which I do not understand at all.  No where in any Christian teaching is it acceptable or ok to attack a person because they are a Jew, and only because they are a Jew.  It is anathema to all Christian teachings.  For someone to suggest it isn't, is an effort to redefine Christian theology and they would be wrong.  Those who, claiming a Christian background, attacks Jews - show clearly how they lack any compass, let alone a broken one.  Why.  I don't understand.  It can only be ignorance and stupidity.  A soul that is filled with hate.  And I am sorry for that, because the message of Christ is the opposite and these people are not making a tragic mistake - they are committing an immoral act that is outside the purview of mistake or accident or emotionally driven.

The other, second group, find hate filling their hearts because they have always seen themselves as weak and desirous of whatever Jews may have.  A homeland promised to them by the God of all people.  In the Bible, Old Testament, it is promised.  The patriarch of Islam, of Ishmael - Abraham, was shown the land he would have.  Joshua, a respected prophet in Islam, was led into the land given to the Hebrews, by God.  To a land identified as Israel - by Jesus himself, and Judea in writing after writing.

Yet the return to the Palestinians as rightful heirs of the land is wrong and untrue - and some people embrace the lies and follow it, defending the actions taken against Jews and Israel as rightful given the displacement of the rightful people of the region - the Palestinians.  This is a broken moral compass and one that is chosen, selected, embraced - they ignore the truth and reality, seeking the lie and hate to fill the void.  It isn't a tragic mistake, it isn't something someone did or said out of emotional fear or question - it was purposeful.  

It was purposeful to draw a picture of a trash bin with the star of David in it, and a slogan - Keep the world clean - as was the case of an educated female living in London, showed proudly as she marched in the streets.  It is not a mistake, nor is it an emotional response to a spiraling problem that she/we cannot imagine a clear path out of, nor is it not a thought out process.  It was very thought out, and very ignorant, despite the fact that female attended a very respectable college in London.  What has she learned from collegiate life?  What have the students at Cornell, UCLA, Harvard, Yale learned in collegiate life?  The PhD does not free you from making mistakes, but when you do, you don't dig deeper, you don't make it again and again and again because doing so negates the argument that you made a mistake - it is now a purposeful and intentional action, whatever it may be.  The marches against Israel are very clear indications that their moral compass is broken.  It is broken, smashed, and buried so deep they cannot remember having it.  Instead they have replaced it with group-think, and a moral relativism that equates heinous acts of murder with innocent loss of life in war.  

I understand that for those mindless fools who equate the two, they see Israel as the one committing heinous acts of murder ... but to believe that requires these moral idiots to ignore and invent a new paradigm.  That Hamas cares about Palestinians.  That Hamas cares about innocent lives.  Placing mortars and missiles next to schools and hospitals demonstrates conclusively they do not. Placing their headquarters under a hospital or school demonstrates the callousness and evil in their intentions.  And the moral idiots who believe them, ignore the facts to believe evil.  

The English government does not place its military forces under hospitals.  The Russian government doesn't even do that.  The Chinese government does not do that.  The Canadian, Japanese, American, Australian, Algerian, Moroccan ... none put their army or military under hospitals or schools.  Why?  Because if Israel is as 'evil' as they say Israel is ... you know Israel will blow up the hospital and kill innocent women and children so you would factor that in, and place your militia as far away from a school as possible ... unless you knew Israel wouldn't blow up the school or hospital because it valued human life and that fraction of a moment would allow you the advantage!  That is the truth.  yet, for all the education those universities provide - it does not teach students how to think for themselves, how to be critical thinkers.  

Israel has probably always known Hamas hid under the hospital and school - the only people who didn't know are probably the poor Palestinians who went to the hospital and some of the naive moral idiots in the West.  Israel allowed it in order that they watch who went in, came out, where they went, what they left in, licenses, places they slept in, who they communicated with ... in order that when and if it became necessary to sort the mess out, they could, even amidst missiles and bombs.  I know that sucks for the moral idiots who wish Hamas well, when most Hamas are hiding in the earth like rats, or are dead and are now becoming one with the earth.  

If I was a leader of the Palestinians and the evil, ruthless Jews were coming and I truly believed they would blow up schools and hospitals and kill everyone they could find; I would do my utmost to move the people as far south and away from the fighting as possible.  I would encourage my people to head toward Egypt.  I would argue with Egypt about opening the gates to let my people in, and I would tell the Egyptians I would repay all the costs to house and shelter my people.  I would defend my people by fighting beyond them, so the enemy would not mistake innocent from belligerent.   I would give up my life for the innocent women and children.  I would fight to the death for the children and their lives - I would use the billions that have poured in to Gaza in the last 12 years to provide protection and shelter, food, and aid to the poor.  I would plead with the Israelis that I wanted medicines and water sent to the hospitals for the needy - and I would pay for it.  That's what I would do.   The difference is the Hamas have done the opposite.  They have prevented people from leaving, they use them as shields, they horde the supplies for themselves in their holes and hide-aways, they create the situation that places everyone in danger.  

In law, which is ironic given the very ignorant attacks coming from students in law school - one learns, or should be learning - about legal responsibility for actions.  For example - I tell Bill and Ted that I would really like the statue of Milan in Mr. Blogs home.  He keeps it on the 2nd floor in the hallway, and I would pay $10,000 for it, if someone could get it for me.  Bill and Ted go to Mr. Blogs home one night, cut the electric lines into the house, break in through a window downstairs.  Mr. Blog hears the crashing glass and gets up and gets his gun and heads out into the dark hallway.  Bill and Ted run into Mr. Blog who fires randomly, and Bill is hit with two bullets.  Ted and Bill still manage to grab the statue and escape downstairs and out the window.  Mr. Blog, while seemingly ok, falters, then leans against a wall and sinks down grabbing his chest.  Shortly after, Mr. Blog dies from the heart attack.  Bill and Ted speed away but Bill dies from his wounds within an hour and Ted, not knowing what to do, drops Bill off at the hospital and escapes.  So ... whats the situation - Ted is responsible for the murder of Mr Blog and Bill.  However, I am also responsible in setting in motion events that lead to the deaths of Blog and Bill.  Murder.  Now, the review of whether it is 1st degree, 2nd degree, manslaughter, negligence ... that's another issue in the case.  Even though Blog shot Bill, Ted is responsible as am I, even though I am no where near the house.  Hamas is responsible for the death of every Palestinian.  Every one of them.  Israel would be responsible based on 2nd degree except for the morality and legal right to war and the effort to prevent innocent deaths - unless the enemy hide in hospitals, schools, ambulances ... Hamas again would be responsible.

Yet our universities and colleges do not teach these ideas - they teach emotional outbursts trump reason and logic, as long as you feel something.  Broken moral compasses are broken, regardless of whether you feel something or not.

Imagine if i had a piñata with Cesar Chavez’s face on it  and I started hitting it while saying Fuck You Cesar  All because I didn’t care for his betrayal of the workers in order to gain financially   And that I felt the betrayal because I was working with non citizens as they came into the US. And I was upset at Chavez’s deception in siding with the financial interests over undocumented workers who had crossed into the US and had been working in the fields until Chavez turned his back on them  imagine   Would anyone be upset? Yes  you bet  I’m white  he isn’t