← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · weisbrot
Thread ID: 12633 | Posts: 7 | Started: 2004-03-03
2004-03-03 14:11 | User Profile
A Boston Globe reader catches movie reviewer Siegel in typical distortion mode...
[url]http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/letters/articles/2004/03/03/the_case_for_moral_absolutism/[/url] The case for moral absolutism 3/3/2004
IN HIS critic at-large feature, Ed Siegel compares the films "Lord of the Rings" and "The Passion of the Christ," and suggests that they represent the two currently warring strands in American culture, namely moral absolutists such as Mel Gibson and moral relativists such as Tolkien ("On religion, 'Passion' is literal, `Rings' is liberal," Feb. 28, Living/Arts).
Although I might agree with Siegel's characterization of America's cultural conflict, I believe he is wrong in his characterization of Tolkien's work, and the intrinsic validity of moral relativism.
There is no moral relativism in "Rings." The villain is absolutely evil. No one stops to ponder the value of inter-species diversity, the cultural contributions of trolls, or the rich artistic heritage of ogres. Good and bad are as clearly defined as can be. No one questions who the real enemy is, or the costs of choosing not to fight him.
Mel Gibson would tell you that the Gospel message does represent an absolute truth. Certainly it is absolute in the sense that it is either true, or it is not. If it is not true, you must dismiss it as a fairy tale of no greater or lesser value than other myths and legends. If, however, it is true, it carries very profound implications with regard to the consequences of how you choose to live your life.
If God told us explicitly that thou shalt not commit adultery, do we toss this aside when modernity decides that adultery is a valid alternative lifestyle? Moral relativism would answer this with a resounding yes. Relativism can easily turn yesterday's perverse behavior into the norm.
I believe the case for moral absolutism is self-evident in that some behaviors and cultures are clearly better than others. I am sure the culture of the cannibals of New Guinea is profoundly fascinating, but I would not hesitate to make a value judgment between their culture and that of the good folks at The Boston Globe. For instance, I would not accept the cannibals' invitation to dinner.
C.C. HOLLEMAN
Carlisle
é Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company. PRINTER FRIENDLY VERSION E-MAIL TO A FRIEND
2004-03-03 14:16 | User Profile
Christians again being told how they should and do practice their faith, tikkun olam style. Siegel somehow twists Tolkien's message into an endorsement of relativism, which he infers is among the virtues of his tribesman Cohn...
[url]http://www.azcentral.com/ent/movies/articles/0301onreligion02.html[/url]
'Passion' is literal, 'Rings' is liberal
New Line Productions
Ed Siegel The Boston Globe Mar. 1, 2004 12:00 AM
The two most talked-about movies of the moment are both concerned with Christian theology. One, of course, is "The Passion of the Christ." The other is the concluding film in the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. J. R. R. Tolkien, like Mel Gibson, was a devout Catholic, and "The Lord of the Rings," he said, was a "fundamentally religious and Catholic work."
For all their common elements - the last temptation of Christ balances the last temptation of Frodo; each features a "Return of the King" - the two movie experiences could not be further apart. Not only do they say completely different things about religion; they represent two warring strands of American culture. For Gibson, the truth is literal and simple and there is room for true believers only. For Tolkien, at least as he is reflected in "The Lord of the Rings," truth is metaphorical and complex, and there is room in this world for people with different ethical beliefs.
"The Passion of the Christ" takes the Gospels as gospel, though critics have noted that Gibson has strayed from the Bible to downplay Jesus's Judaism and overplay the Jews' role in his death. Nevertheless, for Gibson the importance of Jesus' life is his death, and his willingness to withstand unimaginable torture to die for our sins.
"The Lord of the Rings" aims for metaphorical truth. Tolkien's trinity - Gandalf, Frodo, and Aragorn - exists in a pre-Christian or pagan world, albeit one that is witnessing the beginning of the age of man (an age without elves and wizards) by movie's end. It is the spirit of Jesus' life (not his death) that guides this trinity in their applications of violence, love, mercy, perseverance, and sacrifice.
It is no accident, then, that "The Passion of the Christ" has been embraced by conservatives, and especially by evangelical Christians, who tend to see the world in terms of absolute truths. When Jesus says "No one comes to the Father but by me," Gibson is slamming heaven's door on all who don't embrace Christ, particularly the Jews and Romans who are responsible for his torture and death.
In Tolkien's trilogy, the price of glory is the willingness to recognize evil and to do battle with it. It is reductionistic to think of "The Lord of the Rings" as a strictly Catholic or Christian work: Tolkien began imagining it during the horrors of World War I, and it was written in the shadow of the Nazis, and Tolkien was as concerned with that evil as with any other. Nevertheless, the world of "The Lord of the Rings" is inclusive. Hobbits, elves, men of various kinds - everyone is welcome.
The same two kinds of thinking go into the larger cultural debate. If, as conservatives say, the Bible is the literal truth and it frowns on homosexuality, then homosexuality must be a sin, now and forever. (Gibson continues his career-long sneer against gay men by including a queenish Herod in "The Passion.") But if religion has to keep step with modernity, as Tolkien believed, then it is foolish if not immoral to discriminate.
Conservatives would tend to agree with Gibson, that evil is as absolute as the truth. In "The Passion," the devil is real, not abstract. Pilate's moral relativism ultimately thwarts his standing up to the mob. He asks his wife "What is truth?" and it is his Hamlet-like inability to see that Christ represents the truth which gives Caiaphas, the Jewish leader, the opportunity to demand the death of Jesus. It is the same kind of moral relativism that drives conservatives crazy about liberals. Why can't liberals see, conservatives wonder, that Saddam Hussein is pure evil?
It's the absolutism of people like Gibson and President Bush that drives liberals crazy. Why, for example, can't conservatives see that Hussein was no greater danger than other dictators? There is a lot of questioning about where the truth lies in "The Lord of the Rings," as in most modern literature and modern art in general.
Elections, today, are often fought between absolutist conservatives and relativist liberals, with Middle-earth - or Middle America - deciding between those poles. Think of how Michael Dukakis's relativist answer about capital punishment turned off voters in 1988. Ditto Pat Buchanan's absolutist performance at the 1992 Republican Convention. Voters preferred Bill Clinton's relativism to Republican absolutism, but couldn't decide between the two eight years later.
And now? For George W. Bush, as for Mel Gibson, you're either for us (or Jesus), or against us. The truth is not so simple for John Kerry. Changing his mind about Vietnam years ago, and insisting that not every issue has a simple answer, is a sign of strength to his supporters, a sign of weakness to conservatives.
To quote Gandalf, then: "So it begins, the great battle of our time."
2004-03-03 14:31 | User Profile
Finally, a couple of reactions from the "pagan" site where Siegel's article was found via Google. Interesting reactions from these pagans; it would seem that unlike some whose reactions to Christianity are instinctively destructive, these people are capable of at least discerning the bias and dishonesty of this sort of attack. They of course either miss or ignore the obvious tribal motivations of the Siegels. An opportunity, perhaps, for a conversation...
[url]http://www.witchvox.com/wren/wn_detail.html?id=9270[/url]
Confused Pagan Mar 2nd. at 2:37:01 am EST
by Holly (San Francisco, CA) - Email
This was a very haphazardly written story. If we are going to be open minded, critically thinking Pagans, then how can we allow such compromising, contradictory work to be shown on one of the largest Pagan websites in America? While the author argues that judging one religious group from another is wrong, he tends to shoot a lot of fire at Christians. So, what, every other religion is okay except Christianity because he has decided that t hey're closed minded? Isn't he judging a religion by making accusations about the Christian church? And since when did these movies, highly intoxiated as they are with religious undertones, have anything to do with American politics? I got a little confused near the end when he abruptly stopped parealleling Passion and LOTR and started complaining about Bush, Gibson and every other conservative in the world. Don't conservatives have a right to their opinion, also, so as long as their beliefs are not intently harming those around them? Bottom line: I am not trying to side with the conservative right, but we have got to stop blaming Christians, conservatives and whoever else there may be out there for whatever misconceptions there may be about us. Misconception clearing starts with you and making sure that you are living a life that sets the example of Paganism that you want people around you to see.
Unimpressive. Mar 2nd. at 2:34:10 am EST
by Moondaisy (Pittsburgh) - Email
The author begins on a religious note, and ends on a political one (reminding me of a journalistic shell game) . The analogy--Lord of the Rings (relativist liberals) vs. The Passion (absolutist conservatives) --is dubious at best, since the moral dichotomy in LoTR couldn't be clearer. Sauron (and the One Ring) =evil. The Fellowship (and hobbits, elves, men, dwarfs) =good. The lines are firmly drawn in the sand; there is no moral messing about, no relativism whatsoever.
The author begins by asserting the relevance of the two movies and Christian theology, and later says it would be reductionist to consider LoTR a Christian, or Catholic, work.
Well, make up your mind.
Frankly, I think that if Tolkien had said he was Buddhist, there would be slew of articles deconstrucing LoTR as metaphor for Buddhist philosophy. ("Attachment is suffering. Frodo's attachment to the ring creates suffering. Therefore, LoTR is ostensibly a Buddhist manifesto.")
2004-03-03 15:53 | User Profile
At one point in the books, I believe it is Aragorn who remarks that "good and evil" (my words, I can't remember Tolkien's exact words) "have not changed today from what they were yesterday" (or words to that effect). In other words, basic "non-relativestic" morality.
One has to be careful, of course, in that the application of morality may vary from situation to situation (a kind of "soft relativism") but the actual moral principles do not.
When you get right down to it and compare actual historical paganism you will find it does not differ from the "revealed religions" much on matters of basic morality. They all have pretty firm and non-relativistic morality. I think a lot of modern day pagans are starting to realize that as well.
There's no reason why most people of whatever religious or non-religious belief can't agree on certain basics of morality, assuming they share enough cultural and racial "common ground". That would probably exclude most liberal "relativists" and members of Siegel's tribe.
2004-03-04 04:14 | User Profile
"Elections, today, are often fought between absolutist conservatives and relativist liberals", writes Ed Siegel. :huh:
If only liberals really were relativists. Then they would have no principled objection to those who believe in, for example, racial separation. Just imagine Ed Siegel writing, "I personally feel that the races are equal and should be integrated in a diverse, multicultural society, but hey, that's just me. I certainly wouldn't dream of imposing my views on those who value the preservation of their racial heritage."
Of course, Siegel would never write, or even think, such thoughts. It's not that relativists lack the courage of their convictions. Rather, they never truly had such beliefs. Relativism is simply a tool to deconstruct the worldview of their opponents.
But hey, that's just me.
2004-03-04 07:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=grep14w]At one point in the books, I believe it is Aragorn who remarks that "good and evil" (my words, I can't remember Tolkien's exact words) "have not changed today from what they were yesterday" (or words to that effect). In other words, basic "non-relativestic" morality.
One has to be careful, of course, in that the application of morality may vary from situation to situation (a kind of "soft relativism") but the actual moral principles do not.
When you get right down to it and compare actual historical paganism you will find it does not differ from the "revealed religions" much on matters of basic morality. They all have pretty firm and non-relativistic morality. I think a lot of modern day pagans are starting to realize that as well.
There's no reason why most people of whatever religious or non-religious belief can't agree on certain basics of morality, assuming they share enough cultural and racial "common ground". That would probably exclude most liberal "relativists" and members of Siegel's tribe.[/QUOTE]
"stealing is bad" is the sort of thing a pagan, a Christian, and really anyone with ethics can agree on. The disapproval of things this obvious, this "universal", however, don't really tell us much about the morality, about the [I]values[/I], of pagans vis-ÃÂ -vis Christians. Stealing is harmful to any social arrangement so it makes sense that it's frowned upon by everyone who values relationships with others. It's a given. The serious discrepancies deal with values. What a Christian thinks is important can be and is very much at odds with what a pagan finds important. These disagreements are things which are worth fighting and dying for, make no mistake about it.
2004-03-11 19:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Europe Endless]"stealing is bad" is the sort of thing a pagan, a Christian, and really anyone with ethics can agree on.
C.S. Lewis of course, referred to this as "the Tao" -- Natural Law that is placed on the hearts of all men (Romans 2:12-16).
What a Christian thinks is important can be and is very much at odds with what a pagan finds important. These disagreements are things which are worth fighting and dying for, make no mistake about it.[/QUOTE]
Interesting point about this -- listening last night to a Dr. Stan Gaede on Dr. D. James Kennedy's [url=http://www.truthsthattransform.org/]Truths that Transform[/url] radio program. On the issue of moral relativism, Gaede stated that what we are seeing today and perhaps the biggest danger for enemies of said relativism, in this case evangelical Christians, was an 'internalizing' of moral absolutes that divorced personal belief from corresponding action that effects society and culture. I thought it a good observation that helps explain a good bit why we are in the sorry cultural state we are currently in.