So, Jesus more or less recommended the approach of our current administration which has managed, against all odds and the President's personal belief system, which he's kept cleverly hidden, to keep religion and governement seperate?
As far as moral equivalence goes, I may be inclined to accept your criticism depending on the circumstances. However, two parties engaging in the same behavior does not automatically imply moral equivalence. It is merely equivalence of action. The morality of any action is determined by those who engage in it and is either confirmed or condemned by those outside that group because they either agree or disagree with the action. That is, and will always remain, a relativistic question no matter how hard one tries to establish moral high ground.
Those who do not believe in the validitity of their opponents world view can hardly be expected to accept arguments proceeding from it. In matters of faith and politics, or even bikes, the only "validity" any point of view has is the ability of any one person or group to argue their position with some level of success to some larger group. I mean after all, what empirical evidence is there to suggest our bikes are quantifiably "better" than an HD when we all know there's more to picking the bike we ride than "performance value" and "ease of maintenance".
All that can be said with any accuracy is that the two groups behaved the same way with the same or similar justification. And justification requires no moral component to qualify as justification.
What I have asked is, if two groups commit the same acts, then should we judge them by the same standards? If one is condemned and the other praised, by what standard does one refer to to validate the difference if the actions are the same? If both are condemned, then yes, that is moral equivalency. If both are praised then yes that would also be moral equivalency. But in either case, only from the perspective of the person or group accepting or condemning the action. Others may disagree and so there would then BE no moral equivalency. Only agreement or disgreement among various observers.
Just to be clear, I have condemned any who commit acts of violence with reference to something as philosophically debatable as "the will of God". What, after all, separates the musings of Paul in his cell from David Koresh other than some larger group's inclincation to accept their conclusions? Clearly however, some did accept Koresh's and Jones, and Moon and any number of other "heretics". Admittedly one can argue that "mainsteam" Christianity has gained more adherents that any of those listed above, but then, so has Islam. Perhaps that is because they tap a more universal spirituality than that of fanatics and extremists?
Aa far as me personally advancing an position of moral equivalency based upon anything I've said?...hardly. Just because millions of Germans bought into Hitler, or Russians into Stalin, ditto for Mao, Pol Pot or Mussolini, does not mean that I accept their arguments. I could give a rat's a*s for how many agree or disagree. I think the actions are what should be judged, not how many people buy into their justification.
If you wish to change topics to that of the necessity of immoral or ammoral acts committed by good people, I'd be happy to engage in that exchange as well. It is however, a completely seperate argument and we shouldn't mix them.
The great religions of Hindu, Islam, Christianity and Judaism account for the beliefs of billions, with Christians in the decided minority. While Jesus said we'd be persecuted in his name, the same can be said for any religion and I doubt very much that Jesus simply set us up as sacrificial victims for all the idolitors to prey on. Just doesn't seem consistent with his overall message, which if I remember correctly was that he came for all Mankind and left us with only one commandment; love one another. One could include the "do this in memory of me" thing but I don't remember him following it up with, "or there will be Hell to pay". I may be misreading my history, but ignoring the "love one another as your brother and do unto them as you would have them do unto you" has certainly paid Hell's wages nicely.
So let's be clear. I condemn any act of violence against innocents in the name of higher calling. Are you suggesting that in the interest of avoiding the accusation of promoting "moral equivalence" I must choose to accept the arguments of the butchers in the Christian narrative and reject those of the Muslim? To be clearer, are you suggesting that the actions of Christians, no matter how heinous, are justified because they have been done in the name of the "true" God as defined by Christian doctrine but those of Muslims are not because they have been done in the name of a "false god"? And beyond an individual confession of faith, and the support of like believers, what basis for actionable fact can you offer for such a position?
If this is not what you are suggesting, then what are you suggesting?
