The Greeks' achievements in light of their moral compass

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[OrphanPip]

We have to be careful about generalization, a lot of what we have of "Greek" culture is actually Athenian culture specifically, and then afterwards we have the Macedonian empire and the Hellenistic period that followed the end of the city state. We're talking a period of hundreds of years of changing attitudes, political, and philosophical positions.

We can't really lump them all together at a single time either, loads of Greek philosophers doubted the existence of their gods, we have surviving anti-slavery arguments, surviving anti-war arguments (from Euripedes himself in the Trojan Women), and overall they were just as diverse as any modern society.

[Alexander III]

How is it that the people who worshipped and revered such characters have accomplished so much in philosophy, science, poetry, etc?


Because art and science and philosphy have nothing to do with morality. In fact the opposite may even be true. The greatest artists tend to be amoral, and often immoral - was Fitzgerald not an idiot fro drinking himself to death, and Carravagio who killed a man over a tennis match? Is that not idiotic immoral behavior?

What about Byron who treated women like objects to use and dispose?

And heck lets say it while being gay is fine right now, 100, 200 500 years ago it was one of the worst sins which shakespere and Da Vinchi and Wilde indulged in.

Morality is something in and of itself, indipendant from most aspects of human behavior.

I love hunting, I even shot a lion once and have his head mounted in my parents house. My cousin is a vegetarian, he considers killing animals wrong and barbaric. Is he more advanced and inteligent than me? Or is it two different yet equall view points? That is what you need to ask yourself.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[ftil]

OrphanPip,

Fair enough, these are all good points. But my question still stands. Considering the number and enormity of barbaric acts described in the mythology, and the overall reverence (with exceptions) that the Greeks had for it, I think some generalizations are permissible.

I agree as we look at ancient history.
The Archaic period in Greece (800 BC – 480 BC) was a period of ancient Greek history that followed the Greek Dark Ages. They brought about the solidification of the Greeks' religion, mythology and founding history. Archaic period was followed by the Classical period and the Hellenistic Period.

[stlukesguild]

I agree with Alexander III... and I'm reminded of a classic film moment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XQ2tPrBA1k

The notion of linking culture with morality seems to have been something of a Romantic notion. In the late 19th century the museums and the theater became the place for spiritual enlightenment as the church declined. The arts were valued because they were morally and spiritually ennobling. Gautier, Baudelaire, Oscar Wilde, and the whole of the art pour l'art movement recognized the falsehood of this approach to art and openly challenged it.

Considering the bloodthirsty tyrants who were the great patrons of the Renaissance: the Borgias, De Medici, Orsini, Barberini, Gonzagas, etc... considering the lust for art and the support for music among the Nazis it seems impossible not to recognize that morality and artistic creation are two distinct aspects of human behavior that have nothing to do with each other.

One of my favorite Renaissance composers is Carlo Gesualdo... who was a less than morally upstanding dude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Gesualdo

But his music was so damn daring and innovative... pushing tonality in a manner that would not be touched upon again for centuries:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVW8GCnr9-I

[JCamilo]

And the entire idea of the moral compass is wrong. Kissinger never went to Hague, have him? Everyone knew the second Iraq war was based on lies and so what? Kadaffi was until one year ago a nice guy that showed compromisse to change his terrorist ways. In XX century we have seen Franco being hanged, right? Or Stalin? The bombing in Hiroshima that killed thousands of civilians still considered more or less a war glory.

Frankly, Never saw a single war which didnt kill civilians, still the same way. More or less, the epics have less of this, since the focused on the heroes and not peasants, but even so, in the very second book of Homer (and all the sequels to the trojan war), the greek heroes were suffering for all this. Agamenon, Ulysses, Achiles, Ajax, all suffered from having lied, lacking respect to gods, rape, etc. Apparently, by not hiding the flaws of the heroes, they are quite able to produce a dialogue that would lead to develop concepts of morality that include the fact that they were very sympathetic with the losing side. Apparently those barbarians did have more sophistication than civilization is able to deal with?

After all, Achilles is not praised in Iliad, it is more about how he is wrong. And wrong to deny respect for his enemy, to not give him his identity and proper burial. Where is Osama body?

[Alexander III]

Frankly, Never saw a single war which didnt kill civilians, still the same way. More or less, the epics have less of this, since the focused on the heroes and not peasants, but even so, in the very second book of Homer (and all the sequels to the trojan war), the greek heroes were suffering for all this. Agamenon, Ulysses, Achiles, Ajax, all suffered from having lied, lacking respect to gods, rape, etc. Apparently, by not hiding the flaws of the heroes, they are quite able to produce a dialogue that would lead to develop concepts of morality that include the fact that they were very sympathetic with the losing side. Apparently those barbarians did have more sophistication than civilization is able to deal with?

I think this paragraph perfectly answers the OP, In the ancient world there was genocide and rape and destruction, and everyone knew it - and lots of greek poetry is showing us the heroes on small hills in the night bent over in laments and sorrow over what they have done.. Is that not the pinnacle of, something which I don't know, but is surely so human and so beautiful and so haunting that it is all that is human.

On the other hand we have the more modern approach of genocide and rape and destruction which no one knows about...

I mean are we really more moral than our ancestors. I mean most of us think Rwanda and Hitler are distant past, but those two genocides (the nazis being the most terrifying because of it sheer mechanical and machine like nature) in the contexts of human history are part of contemporary history.

The ancient world may have done genocide but they did it with some form of dignity. They killed the men and sold the women into slavery but they killed them as men. The Nazis did not kill, they deleted, not men and women but inferior processes, like Mcdonald's removing their bad stock.

[lawpark]

The disturbing thing is that barbarism of Greek so respected later has become the cultural DNA of the modern world.

For me, the ethical stand of Bhagavadgita is equally disturbing ... so it really isn't just about the Greeks per se.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[JCamilo]

Let's put in mind: The rape was a taboo for Greeks as well. Ajax was punished by raping Cassiopeia, even if under the premisse she was in a temple, his fate indicate he should not have done it. And there is other examples, Medusa in some traditions was a monster after Poissidon rape, even Zeus's conquests generate a lot of problem (You may consider that the greeks also blamed the victim, but I heard in my lifetime excuses about how the girl should not dress as that to not provoke the molester, etc.). The greeks also had all those stories after-war, which are like The Trojans or Hecuba, which are focused on the women suffering, indicating the greek audience had empathy for the victims. In the same play there is the throwing of Hector's kid you mention: the greeks are condeming it. I see this no difference of the atomic bombing which killed thousands, babies among them;

Of course, today the idea of women as war spoiler is a non-sense, but who are the heroes? Michael Jackson? Compare him to Heitor, who was the enemy. Even Homer portraits him in a higher tone, do we see today's enemies doing it? And what is Batman but someone who goes to extremes of violence? Or Conan? Or those cults that worshiped Charles Manson (yes, there is many people that conside psychos charming, even after they are thrown in the jail.)

Of course, Achiles is not a moral model - even for greeks, I repeat, the tone of Iliad is about how his wrath costed many lifes, not how heroic he was - but the heroes are not models. And Ulysses is later being punished for what happened in the war. This indicates that with Homer, the greek morality is not the one who admit rape, but they show it happening, as a form of disgression. It happened, so make it in heroic hexameters. It was the media control of the time.

Do not forget, our journals, novels do have "anti-heroes" who are idolized.

And yes, that is pretty much like... you know, pimps fighting for girls. And don't we have whole "cultural model worship" for pimping? Yes, we have. Thinking of women of sex slaves is so far from thinking of women as sexual toy? Keeping in mind the "sexy slaves" are more like househood slaves, with no freedom to leave but probally food, house, etc. Not so different the world, right?

I must say, I do not defend the superiority of any time. And the greeks is generic (like Pip said), but most of the works show them condeming negative traits (the whole idea of tragedy is downfall due to them, born from a moral teaching to avoid those deeds, which indicate some topics were wrong now and them. After all, this is the same culture that gave us Socrates.

[Alexander III]

Alexander III: I definitely don't think that geniuses are or need to be pillars of the community morally, but should we compare drunkenness, homosexuality and other behaviors that are at most vices with infanticide and rape? Surely many great men were asses, but how many today would consider infanticide acceptable?


That is interesting. You read my answer took out the relevant part which you could answer and ingored the other relevant part you couldnt answer.

Yes many great men were asses. But you ingore Carravgio murdering a man over a tennis match? Murder over something so trivial is a little bit more than "***" like behavior don't you think?

Carravagio is not unique. How many great artists fought in wars and killed men, and many murdered men and were ready to murder men in duels - Infanticide? Dante and Cervantes fought wars in very cruel times, they surley killed many boys. And rape? plenty have comited rape. But then again you talk of rape and infanticide, so why cant I mention homosexuality?
Yes by modern standards it is not imoral. But if my great Grandfather could have stood in his village and said Homosexuality is just as bad as rape and murder, and the enitre village would have agreed with him - it means that at one time homosexuality was percieved in such a manner, and when it comes to morality you cant think soley within the context of your time - so there are many genuises who have killed and even raped, and there are many who have sodomised -

At the end of the day morality is much like any other art form, it has cycles and different movements; it neither progresses nor degresses it simply spirals back and forth. Genocide and rape and murder and homosexuality, are neither intelligent nor stupid, neither bad nor good, they are human.

You may find genocide to be tenebrous

My great grandfather found homosexuality to be tenebrous

At the end of the day it is just another thing, like art or politics or science - They all mingle yet great ability is one area doesnt mean ability in the others is necesary.

Well, the Iliad begins with Achilles being mad at Agamemnon for stealing Achilles's sex-slave, whom he kidnapped from her father's land. I don't recall Homer not being OK with that.


Really? Are you being hyperbolic to give some credence to your argument or is that really the way you read the Iliad. If the later is true, I am sorry but stick to reading contempory books...

[prendrelemick]

There were atrocities the Greeks regarded as beyond the pale. Oedipus killing his father, Clytemnestra her husband and Orestes his mother. These were regarded as 'unnatural' murders and the perpetrators could expect devine punishment.

[ftil]

Let's put in mind: The rape was a taboo for Greeks as well.



I would argue that rape was a taboo. Mythology is full of examples of rape and abduction. Look at Zeus who abducted and raped women and boys. There were more gods than Zeus who didn’t hesitate to use violence and rape. Likwise, anciet Egyptians did not consider sex to be a taboo subject, as their mythology contained stories of adultery, incest and same sex relationships. For the royal family, incest was seen as a holy act because it perpetuated the bloodline of the gods. The Greek historian Herodotus claimed that all Babylonian women were bound by law to sexually perform for strangers. We can’t forget about human sacrifices to please gods.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[JCamilo]

I would argue that rape was a taboo. Mythology is full of examples of rape and abduction. Look at Zeus who abducted and raped women and boys. There were more gods than Zeus who didn’t hesitate to use violence and rape. Likwise, anciet Egyptians did not consider sex to be a taboo subject, as their mythology contained stories of adultery, incest and same sex relationships. For the royal family, incest was seen as a holy act because it perpetuated the bloodline of the gods. The Greek historian Herodotus claimed that all Babylonian women were bound by law to sexually perform for strangers. We can’t forget about human sacrifices to please gods.

Eh? Zeus is a special case, but either way, his wife was constantly reminding the faithfull that what he was doing was not right either. It is good to notice, Zeus is already challengend by greeks, not after them. But hey, we do not have powerful figures in our world that can say a sexual relation was just a blowjob, right? And Still be popular?

Apparently, Roman Polanski still won a Oscar, didnt he? Europeans do not seem much worried with watever he did, right?

Zeus is not an example, he is not to be imitated. They didnt have a tribunal saying he is not pedophile (it is good to notice, one of the best poems of his rapes is Yeat's Leda and the Swamn, XX century), they just showed the consequences (Many of Zeus offsprings were a problem or had a problematic life, which certainly "encourages" people to go like, Zeus, right?). Several other stories (and the fact, Greek society didnt desintegrated) shows rape is a taboo.

Sex being a subject is not a problem (sex is not anti-ethical), the egypt is not exactly alike the greeks, Herodotus would say what of modern society sexual explotation? And still: Agamenon did a human sacrifice, what happened with him?

I think you confud "those things happened" with "the greeks admire those things".

[Alexander III]

Now you're just being an ***. What precisely is hyperbolic about that example? What did I misread? Wasn't that the starting point of the Iliad? Will you attempt to make an argument before you pollute a perfectly good thread?



By all means, let's add cursing, littering, and cutting in line to that list. If you don't see a difference between homosexuality and infanticide, then there's nothing more to discuss.

Yea we can't discuss, you read my posts like your read the Iliad - letting everything go straight over your head.

[ftil]

Eh? Zeus is a special case, but either way, his wife was constantly reminding the faithfull that what he was doing was not right either. It is good to notice, Zeus is already challengend by greeks, not after them. But hey, we do not have powerful figures in our world that can say a sexual relation was just a blowjob, right? And Still be popular?

Apparently, Roman Polanski still won a Oscar, didnt he? Europeans do not seem much worried with watever he did, right?

Zeus is not an example, he is not to be imitated. They didnt have a tribunal saying he is not pedophile (it is good to notice, one of the best poems of his rapes is Yeat's Leda and the Swamn, XX century), they just showed the consequences (Many of Zeus offsprings were a problem or had a problematic life, which certainly "encourages" people to go like, Zeus, right?). Several other stories (and the fact, Greek society didnt desintegrated) shows rape is a taboo.

Sex being a subject is not a problem (sex is not anti-ethical), the egypt is not exactly alike the greeks, Herodotus would say what of modern society sexual explotation? And still: Agamenon did a human sacrifice, what happened with him?

I think you confud "those things happened" with "the greeks admire those things".


You have missed my point. Firstly, I didn’t talk only about Greek theocracy. Secondly, think about those who have created those religions. Religions provide a moral code and influence what behaviors are moral or not. So, if prostitution was practiced in Greek temples to worship gods, it sanctified that behavior. I don’t know how women in Mesopotamia felt about the law to sexually serve others. Did they ask women? Or we just talk about priests who imposed “the law of gods’ upon women. If gods give an example of violence, rape, or murder, and ask to worship them with human or animal sacrifice……so humans do.

[stlukesguild]

Ragnar Freund-...you make an excellent point about how today humanity still engages in barbaric acts, but since these are done by "civilized" nations, by "us", and are covered by titles such as "War on Terrorism", we treat them as OK. But still, we don't watch movies in which the good guys rape, pillage, and throw babies off battlements, do we? Our movies, plays, and TV shows at least pretend to show the good guys as doing good. That doesn't seem to be the case in Greek mythology.

I think that a lot of the best art from the Greeks onward presented an image of the hero that involved a degree of moral conflict. I agree that there is probably a difference from one culture to another with regard to what sort of actions are acceptable in a hero... what can be ignored... and what cannot. I attending a showing of the film, Saving Private Ryan which included one of the most graphic and realistic portrayals of the D-Day landing. In one scene the American troops finally break through and seize the hill from the advantage of which the German troops had been slaughtering the Americans at will. Overrun, several of the German soldiers raise their arms in a signal of surrender only to be shot "in cold blood" by the Americans. A woman in the audience shouted out, "That never happened". To her mind it was unthinkable that the Americans... the "good guys" would never have adhered to the absolute rules of fair play. To my thinking, I could not imagine how most anyone would have acted differently. All around you your friends heads are being blown up by the bullets from the German guns reining down upon you. Suddenly you seize the ramparts and before you are the very individuals responsible for the carnage of your friends and compatriots... but they have raised their arms in supplication... and so you...? Walk away and mumble "Oh well. No harm. No foul."?

Alexander III- After all, Achilles is not praised in Iliad, it is more about how he is wrong. And wrong to deny respect for his enemy, to not give him his identity and proper burial.

Ragnar Freund- Well, the Iliad begins with Achilles being mad at Agamemnon for stealing Achilles's sex-slave, whom he kidnapped from her father's land. I don't recall Homer not being OK with that.

I think both of these actions add to the image of Achilles as a flawed or morally conflicted character... a character who essentially abandons his rightful commander and his compatriots in their time of need in order to pout and preen like some effeminate prima donna (check into Christopher Logue's War Music, a translation of selections of the Iliad which hints at something of a homoerotic relationship between Achilles and Patroclus) because he imagines he has been slighted. Again, I think the Greek works show a clear moral compass... it is simply that their moral standards of what is acceptable behavior in a hero is different from ours. The Greeks seem to have little problem with the notion of the rape and pillage of the conquered (who are less than human, after all)... although It would seem that there certainly are elements of empathy for the other side in Homer and nearly all the Greek writers. We turn our blind eye just as freely... but to different behavior. We cheer when the American bombers reach their targets and drop their payloads upon the civilian populations of Tokyo, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Saigon, or Baghdad... where we would not accept the hero who kills an innocent child or old man in cold blood. The Holocaust was absolute evil... but the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo... Hiroshima and Nagasaki... we barely acknowledge a degree of moral ambiguity was involved.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[JCamilo]

You have missed my point. Firstly, I didn’t talk only about Greek theocracy. Secondly, think about those who have created those religions. Religions provide a moral code and influence what behaviors are moral or not. So, if prostitution was practiced in Greek temples to worship gods, it sanctified that behavior. I don’t know how women in Mesopotamia felt about the law to sexually serve others. Did they ask women? Or we just talk about priests who imposed “the law of gods’ upon women. If gods give an example of violence, rape, or murder, and ask to worship them with human or animal sacrifice……so humans do.

I adressed to your examples all. I cannt see how I missed that wasnt only theocracy. (Technically none, as Zeus is not a real political regime).

Wait there, the example you gave are temples in Babylon (and most poeple agree Herodothus exagerated, you know why? Because he was painting a bad vision of babylonians, which show prostitution is not some socially accepted in greece - it is good to notice Dyonisius cultists were not so well accepted in normal society and even there, it is like me saying we do have "temples" for prostitution and sexual exploration, so this cannt show any lack of morality while compared ot us).

How women ends as prostitutes, 3000 years ago or now is basically "similar", Pimps are usual in our culture and they explore women. Calling a person a whore was an offense, Helen was accused of this for example and this was an offense. The greeks certainly diddnt consider prostitution the norm.

Sure? Which religion impose their divine figures behaviour to the users? Or do it? People go jumping on crosses? Have any of them tried to to turn people in salt? And still you miss the point: the greeks present flaws and provoke an example out of those flaws. Tyrants are often punished, rapists all. Let's put simply: almost all greek heroes of Trojan were punished. Even dead ones, like Achiles had his spirit restless. And of course, in this exercise I would have to say that if you see a sympathic criminal like the Corleones, you will want to be like them? Where is the moral superiroty?

Ragnar:

The greeks do threat Homer as sacred. But you are missing the point: Achilles is criticised in the Iliad. He is rendemend thru the final chapter, when Patrocolo - much wiser - convice him to respect his family and dead Heitor. There is of course, several batles, but the Iliad does not glorify rape, mindless killing, innocent blood, etc.

After the war Ulysses is punished (his exile was a god's punishment), Agamenon killed (again, related to his acts that lead to that war), Achiles died ad his spirit was restless, Ajax (both died)... in a way, the only major greek hero who seems to have not suffered a thing was Menelau (in the end, the only one that seemed to have a fair reason to go to war). There is quite much examples of plays that show sympathy towards Trojans (Cassiopeia and Hecuba simple work as moral accusers all the way). This means, the greeks presented the acts but they didnt worshiped those acts, rather condeming them and the tragedy: the downfall due the character's flaw was a way to say : dont do it. Probally, all this helped Socrates a lot, the guy was a fan of irony right? He had to compare ideas to come with an idea.

Just because they presented heroes (which basic means protagonists, not moral models) that engaged in doubtous acts does not means they agree. Otherwise, future generations will see modern books or movies: Lolita, American Psycho, The Godfather, Pulp Fiction... and say our society admired pedophiles, murderes, criminals and drug users.

[ftil]

Genocide and rape and murder and homosexuality, are neither intelligent nor stupid, neither bad nor good, they are human.


Hm…. Basically humans would less then animals. Life without any responsibility, empathy, and limits. It reminds me about Aleister Crowley’s, “do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law”. Murder or rapist has own law and live by one's own law. It is scary to even think about it.


We cheer when the American bombers reach their targets and drop their payloads upon the civilian populations of Tokyo, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Saigon, or Baghdad... where we would not accept the hero who kills an innocent child or old man in cold blood. The Holocaust was absolute evil... but the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo... Hiroshima and Nagasaki... we barely acknowledge a degree of moral ambiguity was involved.

I don’t think that people cheered when innocent people died. Women definitely not. However, we become more desensitized to others pain. We heard slogans, “war is peace”, and perhaps, accepted it without thinking.
Anyway, a good point.

[ftil]

Originally posted by JCamilo:
Wait there, the example you gave are temples in Babylon (and most poeple agree Herodothus exagerated, you know why? Because he was painting a bad vision of babylonians, which show prostitution is not some socially accepted in greece - it is good to notice Dyonisius cultists were not so well accepted in normal society and even there, it is like me saying we do have "temples" for prostitution and sexual exploration, so this cannt show any lack of morality while compared ot us).


On what basis you have made the assumptions that Herodotus exaggerated?
I think that you know that Dionysian Mystery rites were as that, mystery. Scholars who studied that subject in depth clearly stated that. You don’t know, either and you are making assumptions.




How women ends as prostitutes, 3000 years ago or now is basically "similar", Pimps are usual in our culture and they explore women. Calling a person a whore was an offense, Helen was accused of this for example and this was an offense. The greeks certainly diddnt consider prostitution the norm.


I agree that today our culture doesn’t differ that much from ancient cultures. Have you ever considered why this is happening today?



Sure? Which religion impose their divine figures behaviour to the users? Or do it? People go jumping on crosses? Have any of them tried to to turn people in salt? And still you miss the point: the greeks present flaws and provoke an example out of those flaws. Tyrants are often punished, rapists all. Let's put simply: almost all greek heroes of Trojan were punished. Even dead ones, like Achiles had his spirit restless. And of course, in this exercise I would have to say that if you see a sympathic criminal like the Corleones, you will want to be like them? Where is the moral superiroty?


I haven’t missed your point. But you haven’t answered my questions. There are very valid questions that take us to ancient theocracy and priests imposing their law. Look at ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia how successful priests were in manipulating humans and keeping them under control.

[JCamilo]

On what basis you have made the assumptions that Herodotus exaggerated?

Oh the fact that most comparassions with other registers find him exagerating a bit or getting carried away by his sources?



I think that you know that Dionysian Mystery rites were as that, mystery. Scholars who studied that subject in depth clearly stated that. You don’t know, either and you are making assumptions.

Yet, I am not making any assumption about dyonisiam mysteries, I am talking about how the greek society reacted to. It is not a mystery. Which scholars also agree.



I agree that today our culture doesn’t differ that much from ancient cultures. Have you ever considered why this is happening today?

Probally because mankind is the same for a while.




I haven’t missed your point. But you haven’t answered my questions. There are very valid questions that take us to ancient theocracy and priests imposing their law. Look at ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia how successful priests were in manipulating humans and keeping them under control.

The point is not about Egypt or Mesopotamia, but Greece?

[ftil]

Oh the fact that most comparassions with other registers find him exagerating a bit or getting carried away by his sources?


Can you tell what scholars you have in mind?


Yet, I am not making any assumption about dyonisiam mysteries, I am talking about how the greek society reacted to. It is not a mystery. Which scholars also agree.

I am wondering what you have found out about it. Can you direct me to your resource? I have found mysteries rites or god cults quite fascinating.



Probally because mankind is the same for a while.

Hm....I wish that the answer were that simple. :wink5:




The point is not about Egypt or Mesopotamia, but Greece?

No, I was talkng about the power of theocracy to manipulate and control society. It is not about specific religion of the ancient world.

[JCamilo]

Can you tell what scholars you have in mind?

You can just go as much as copy and pasting all actual historians, because Herodotus is not considerade a reliable source. But that is old, Voltaire already joked about his credulity. After all you will find tales that are similar to Brothers Grimms tales (such as the righ of policrates) there.




I am wondering what you have found out about it. Can you direct me to your resource? I have found mysteries rites or god cults quite fascinating.

Euripides play The Bachae can pretty much show the reaction of the population to Dyonisios (and he was presented in a good light, after all, a god related to theatre). Nietzsche Birth of Tragedy deal with the theme. While popular, some of his festivals were even banned due the "crazy hippie full of drugs state." Also the Bacchaes are not "normal" members of society, but portraited as mad as hell.



]No, I was talkng about the power of theocracy to manipulate and control society. It is not about specific religion of the ancient world.


The power of anycracy. Anyways, the greek state cities didnt had a similar governament form everywhere, without a secular church organization is kind hard of having a theocracy.

[ftil]

You can just go as much as copy and pasting all actual historians, because Herodotus is not considerade a reliable source. But that is old, Voltaire already joked about his credulity. After all you will find tales that are similar to Brothers Grimms tales (such as the righ of policrates) there.

I am not interesting to copy and paste but to study that subject. Is it your way of studying? :wink5: I don’t limit myself to one historian. You should know why. I am fascinated by mythology and religion not a tales for children.


Euripides play The Bachae can pretty much show the reaction of the population to Dyonisios (and he was presented in a good light, after all, a god related to theatre). Nietzsche Birth of Tragedy deal with the theme. While popular, some of his festivals were even banned due the "crazy hippie full of drugs state." Also the Bacchaes are not "normal" members of society, but portraited as mad as hell.


Oh, I thought you were talking about scholars. It is a big subject and there are scholars who spent entire career to study that subject. You can’t get the complexity of that subject from Euripides’s play or Nietzsche. :ihih:



The power of anycracy. Anyways, the greek state cities didnt had a similar governament form everywhere, without a secular church organization is kind hard of having a theocracy.

Here you go again. Well, I am not going to repeat myself. I thought that you were interested in serious discussion. We may end our conversation now.

[JCamilo]

I am in interessed in a serious discussion, but really? A topic about the comparitive morality of here and now is about a theocracy without even presenting watever this had to do with both societies? Really, which teocracy do you talk? Athens? Sparta? Macedonia?

And anyways, It is irrelevant what the disguise the political power have, they all have controling methods. Mass washing crowds to have them as blind followers is not so different from mass washing crowds in name of consumism. But vague mentions "what about babylon" means what? besides being unrelated to both societies in the topic?

As the sources, Herodothus as unreliable (or 100% reliable, either way) source is so old, you are asking me is like "list scholars who think darwin was a biologist.". This does not exclude him as an interesting writer, he is. But using him (you used only 1 historian, him! I am the one telling your only source about prostitution in babylon is doubtful) as single source about places where he didn't went, cultures he didnt knew is not certainly a good way.

As the Bachaes (I did not knew Nietzsche does not classify as scholar, but well), you can certainly use the most play as one basis. As to know about the Dionisians mysteries, not my interest. Neither my point at all.

[ftil]

I am in interessed in a serious discussion, but really? A topic about the comparitive morality of here and now is about a theocracy without even presenting watever this had to do with both societies? Really, which teocracy do you talk? Athens? Sparta? Macedonia?

And anyways, It is irrelevant what the disguise the political power have, they all have controling methods. Mass washing crowds to have them as blind followers is not so different from mass washing crowds in name of consumism. But vague mentions "what about babylon" means what? besides being unrelated to both societies in the topic?

As the sources, Herodothus as unreliable (or 100% reliable, either way) source is so old, you are asking me is like "list scholars who think darwin was a biologist.". This does not exclude him as an interesting writer, he is. But using him (you used only 1 historian, him! I am the one telling your only source about prostitution in babylon is doubtful) as single source about places where he didn't went, cultures he didnt knew is not certainly a good way.

As the Bachaes (I did not knew Nietzsche does not classify as scholar, but well), you can certainly use the most play as one basis. As to know about the Dionisians mysteries, not my interest. Neither my point at all.



I am not going to respond to your posts any more. For some reason you hold tightly to Greece, ignoring that I talked about Egypt or Mesopotamia as an example.

You only use Herodotus as an example and repeat like a broken record as if he was the only historian. :biggrin5:

You may use a play as a source of knowledge about mythology……..but you need to find somebody who will be happy with that level of depth. I don’t like talking……..for sake of talking. No time for it……..:banana:

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That is interesting. You read my answer took out the relevant part which you could answer and ingored the other relevant part you couldnt answer.

Ragnar has a habit of doing that.

[prendrelemick]

I would always hesitate to say our moral values are better than those of a different time and different culture. Unlike the Greeks, we supposedly value life above everything else (though we manage to kill each other very efficiently.) We pay lip service to a perceived collective morality, but are more than ready to put it aside for advantage.

The Greeks were at least honest, making heros out of thieves and murderers and acknowledging the gritty visceral processes involved. We in the west prefer use cruise missiles for our atrocities and venerate the generals who launch them.

Who is the most moral - Achilles who stood toe to toe and killed his enemies or General Shwarzkopf who ordered a button to be pressed to do the same?

[Hurricane]

I would always hesitate to say our moral values are better than those of a different time and different culture. Unlike the Greeks, we supposedly value life above everything else (though we manage to kill each other very efficiently.) We pay lip service to a perceived collective morality, but are more than ready to put it aside for advantage.

The Greeks were at least honest, making heros out of thieves and murderers and acknowledging the gritty visceral processes involved. We in the west prefer use cruise missiles for our atrocities and venerate the generals who launch them.

Who is the most moral - Achilles who stood toe to toe and killed his enemies or General Shwarzkopf who ordered a button to be pressed to do the same?

Considering GEN Schwarzkopf received numerous awards for personal bravery, including an incident where he (already wounded) went into a minefield to rescue another wounded soldier, I think he's probably not the best analogy. I know you're just choosing him to make a point, but still.

Anyone who thinks that the Greeks had a more moral way of doing war than we do today clearly hasn't had their ears talked off about the Law of Armed Conflict and the Geneva Convention.
Saying that "rapes and murders still happen in today's wars!" is almost a moot point, sort of like saying "rapes and murders still happen in today's civilian world!" Of course they do. War crimes like rape and murder still occur, but are far from the acceptable standard of behavior that they seemed to be in the ancient world.

[Darcy88]

I would always hesitate to say our moral values are better than those of a different time and different culture. Unlike the Greeks, we supposedly value life above everything else (though we manage to kill each other very efficiently.) We pay lip service to a perceived collective morality, but are more than ready to put it aside for advantage.

The Greeks were at least honest, making heros out of thieves and murderers and acknowledging the gritty visceral processes involved. We in the west prefer use cruise missiles for our atrocities and venerate the generals who launch them.

Who is the most moral - Achilles who stood toe to toe and killed his enemies or General Shwarzkopf who ordered a button to be pressed to do the same?

I agree.

Also, the Greeks didn't trash the environment the way we are. And one could look at their war-like spirit as a sign of their immorality, but one could also look at it as proof of their bravery and selflessness in being willing to risk it all for the sake of the community. Of course ego and glory did have a lot to do with it as well but so did loyalty for the city-state.

And at that time, under those conditions, people had to have hardened hearts and a willingness to shed another's blood. If the Greeks hadn't been so martially inclined they would have been enslaved by their neighbours.

I don't think they were any less moral than us. The situation was simply different and immorality was manifested in a much more naked, more obvious way.

[JCamilo]

That is silly, the Genevra laws and etc. did not stopped the killing of civilians, racist imprisionemnets, and even something as the execution of the enemy denying him the fair trial right and even his burial right that happened in the last decade.

Plus, pointing laws and codes do not imply in morality - The Greeks clealry condemend rape, the war, abuse of innocents, religious disrespect, etc in the works. That represents the morality of their society, not that there was people who did it, otherwise our society wll be judged by Charles Manson and Osama.

[prendrelemick]

Is "morality" an utterly abstract concept then, an ideal, that operates in theory and is quickly put aside or altered as the situation demands?

[OrphanPip]

I think Hurricane raises a good point, despite the popular conception of the atrocities of the modern world, anthropologist and historians in recent years have argued that we do in fact live in less violent times. In the civilian world, murder and rape occur far less frequently in the West than the earliest available records from Europe. You are also far more likely to die from disease or accident than by violence today, either murder or war.

Sure we have moments of violations of conventions in war, but they tend to be incidental, and they stand out precisely because they go against our conventional ethics. Wars in general are also a lot less common today than they have ever been in history. We, and not only in the West, are less likely to engage in violence and less likely to tolerrate extremes of it than seemingly ever before.

I don't actually think the prevalence of violence and war in the ancient world are due to their morals though, but to larger issues like a lack of international diplomatic structures and concepts of universal rights and the like, the so called "democratic peace theory" which explains the unification of the Western world politically. Obviously, things like developed welfare states and organized police forces account for the lower crime rates.

[Alexander III]

I agree.

Also, the Greeks didn't trash the environment the way we are. And one could look at their war-like spirit as a sign of their immorality, but one could also look at it as proof of their bravery and selflessness in being willing to risk it all for the sake of the community. Of course ego and glory did have a lot to do with it as well but so did loyalty for the city-state.

And at that time, under those conditions, people had to have hardened hearts and a willingness to shed another's blood. If the Greeks hadn't been so martially inclined they would have been enslaved by their neighbours.

I don't think they were any less moral than us. The situation was simply different and immorality was manifested in a much more naked, more obvious way.

If you really want to talk about the progression of morality in war -

98% of casualties in WWI were soldiers - 2% were civilians

98% of casualties in Iraq/Afganistan wars were civilians. 2% were soldiers.

[JCamilo]

The thing about reduction of violence is more about law than morality: the governaments are more strong and equiped to impose the law. In the past those resources were limited, so they could not react as efficiently to similar moral demands.

I have seen a dude who made the argument about the less violent times, his argument is was: the second world war was only the 7th more violent war of all time. Okay, lovely, so in 30 centuries, we are in the 7th. And decided that is all an abuse of statistics.

[Hurricane]

I think Hurricane raises a good point, despite the popular conception of the atrocities of the modern world, anthropologist and historians in recent years have argued that we do in fact live in less violent times. In the civilian world, murder and rape occur far less frequently in the West than the earliest available records from Europe. You are also far more likely to die from disease or accident than by violence today, either murder or war.

Sure we have moments of violations of conventions in war, but they tend to be incidental, and they stand out precisely because they go against our conventional ethics. Wars in general are also a lot less common today than they have ever been in history. We, and not only in the West, are less likely to engage in violence and less likely to tolerrate extremes of it than seemingly ever before.

I don't actually think the prevalence of violence and war in the ancient world are due to their morals though, but to larger issues like a lack of international diplomatic structures and concepts of universal rights and the like, the so called "democratic peace theory" which explains the unification of the Western world politically. Obviously, things like developed welfare states and organized police forces account for the lower crime rates.

I think OrphanPip explains what I was trying to get at better than I did. I don't think there's one big objective moral standard that's existed for all humanity ever, so it's a little disingenuous to say "Well, Achilles would never fire a Tomahawk missile!" or "The Greeks were much nicer to the environment than we are!" Apples and oranges.

Alexander III: #s?

[B. Laumness]

Genocide and rape and murder and homosexuality, are neither intelligent nor stupid, neither bad nor good, they are human.


You can't say that. It's an absurdity. Dad killed his child: it's neither intelligent nor stupid, neither bad nor good, it's human. With such an argument, you can justify everything and make the social life impossible.

[Alexander III]

Alexander III: #s?

Imagine China declared war on America. Imagine there were 6 million american deaths in this conflict. Imagine that of those 6 million 5.8 million were common people, children women working husbands and the like. Only 200,000 soldiers died. What does this say about the Chinese war effort, and whom they were targeting?


You can't say that. It's an absurdity. Dad killed his child: it's neither intelligent nor stupid, neither bad nor good, it's human. With such an argument, you can justify everything and make the social life impossible.

Yes I can. I am not trying to "justify" anything or discuss "social life". I am taking a man from any era, placing him on a hill top under the moon and looking at him. I do not care for his people, or his buildings or anything that is not in that hilltop. I just care about the man. This discussion is about the man.

[Hurricane]

Imagine China declared war on America. Imagine there were 6 million american deaths in this conflict. Imagine that of those 6 million 5.8 million were common people, children women working husbands and the like. Only 200,000 soldiers died. What does this say about the Chinese war effort, and whom they were targeting?[\QUOTE]

Taking this one to PM.


[QUOTE]Yes I can. I am not trying to "justify" anything or discuss "social life". I am taking a man from any era, placing him on a hill top under the moon and looking at him. I do not care for his people, or his buildings or anything that is not in that hilltop. I just care about the man. This discussion is about the man.

....Aaand you lost me.

[Darcy88]

If there is less war today I don't think this can be attributed to an increase in morality. More likely its the result of nuclear deterrence and the reality that countries can dominate or be dominated more easily economically than militarily.

[stlukesguild]

98% of casualties in WWI were soldiers - 2% were civilians

98% of casualties in Iraq/Afganistan wars were civilians. 2% were soldiers.

Alex... where did you get these numbers? Considering the civilian deaths in the bombings of London, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima as well as the sieges of Berlin, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc... the civilian deaths in Poland, and Russia, and China... to say nothing of the Holocaust... I'm having a hard time picturing where your numbers came from. Perhaps they ring true if we are speaking solely of US casualties... but the numbers seem seriously skewed.

[prendrelemick]

Stalin once said - the death of an individual is a tragedy, the death of thousands is a statistic - That may be a morally reprehensible line, but also true. Asternax's cruel murder by Greek troops affects us more deeply than the heaps dead bodies scattered about the streets of Troy.
In modern warfare the enemy is mostly faceless, we watch a building explode on CNN without a flicker of our "moral compass". We are able to remain in our modern morality bubble because we don't see the civilians being blown apart, we are essentially in denial. Greek morality acknowledged and accepted the atrocities of conflict. they developed their moral codes to cope with it. In those days they had to, because it was an up close and personal buisness.

[Big Dante]

98% of casualties in WWI were soldiers - 2% were civilians

98% of casualties in Iraq/Afganistan wars were civilians. 2% were soldiers.

Alex... where did you get these numbers? Considering the civilian deaths in the bombings of London, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima as well as the sieges of Berlin, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc... the civilian deaths in Poland, and Russia, and China... to say nothing of the Holocaust... I'm having a hard time picturing where your numbers came from. Perhaps they ring true if we are speaking solely of US casualties... but the numbers seem seriously skewed.

WWI not WWII :prrr:

[prendrelemick]

Sorry folks, but I have been thinking of modern concepts of morality in conflict all morning.

I've been trying to get my head round the moral logic of Guantanamo Bay and of Special Rendition. As I see it, it was expedient to imprison terrorist suspects without fair trial - and to torture them to gain infomation. That's a judgement made by people who are elected to make those decisions on our behalf, and they took that responsibility.

And that's where I get lost. Its a real moral maze, if morality can't stand up to what's expedient where does that leave us?



Would it have been morally better to carry out what was percieved to be necessary on home soil and to admit it?

[Alexander III]

To get things straight, I am not arguing that the Greeks are more moraly adavnced or we are more moraly advanced, all I am saying is that there are superficial differences, but the core is just the same.

Take Hittite soldier who has just killed an egyptian soldier in a small skirmish and is looking at his dead body once the fight is over.

Take a neolithic nomad who has just killed another man from another tribe in a small skirmish.

Take a French soldier who has just fought a skirmish and killed a cote d'ivoire native and looks on his body.

There are thousands of years between all these men, and millions of cultural differences, but when they look at the dead body they all "feel" the same sensation.

At the end of the day most of everything about various cultures is superficial, as the core of humanity is found unchanged in its sensations of Love and Death and Lonliness.

[OrphanPip]

At the end of the day most of everything about various cultures is superficial, as the core of humanity is found unchanged in its sensations of Love and Death and Lonliness.

It's too much of a reductionist position, human culture changes a lot of how we perceive things. The Greek's understanding of the world certainly effected how they acted in war, to say otherwise requires ignoring large swaths of history. Standard Greek military policy was enslavement and slaughter of anyone they defeated, this hasn't been acceptable in European conduct during war since the rise of the Catholic church. For the Athenians, anyone who was not a citizen of Athens was not considered deserving of moral consideration. This is clearly not a thought process that fits into most modern conceptions of humanity, we mostly conceive of those not of our nationality as also being people.

To say all those hypothetical people feel the same is nothing more than a Romantic fantasy, what are the chances that three different people in the same position today would feel identically?

[JCamilo]

I think somethings still very similar. And there is the argument...

Morals are different, no question. Because even USA moral and Brazil moral and Chinese moral are different. Also it is different the reactions in war. Slavery and Killing was no different to killing and economical exploration that still happen today from the ethical point of view. Which is also where matters. From ethical point of view the greeks also vallued similar vallues as ours. And just like us, the "special" occasions like wars there is sittuations of extreme immorality for all, that are not the rule, but we will find examples of it every time.

[Alexander III]

To say all those hypothetical people feel the same is nothing more than a Romantic fantasy, what are the chances that three people in the same position today would feel identically?

I have been in love and you have been in love, and a Massai boy from the begining has been in love - can you honestly say that that love we felt was different?

How about Death, A cossack boy who came home and found his village burnt and his parents dead, does he not cry as I would cry If I were to come home and find my parents dead, or if a chinese boy now were to loose his parents - would we all not cry in the same way and feel that lonliness and feel death so full and man so small?

Yes there are differences, Greeks saw warfare in a different light to us, that is true. But the greek who looks at the body of the macedonian he has just killed, and an american who looks at the body of an Afgani he has just killed, do they not feel that same sensation that same relief, loneliness and confusion, and all that sadness which only music can describe?

If what you say is true, then I would not have cried when in The Iliad Hector lifts his boy and kisses him and says goodbye to his wife and goes to face his death, and to die in an manner honorable to that gift of life. I should not have understood it, yet I did understand it.

[OrphanPip]

I have been in love and you have been in love, and a Massai boy from the begining has been in love - can you honestly say that that love we felt was different?

Yes, I think it possible to conceptualize of love as something very different from someone else. First of all, such a proposition relies on the existence of some Platonic ideal of what is essentially an abstract idea. Do we all call the same things love, does the pedophile who claims to love his victim feel love in the same way as everyone else? If love was so simple there wouldn't be a body of philosophical and artistic work trying to explain it.



How about Death, A cossack boy who came home and found his village burnt and his parents dead, does he not cry as I would cry If I were to come home and find my parents dead, or if a chinese boy now were to loose his parents - would we all not cry in the same way and feel that lonliness and feel death so full and man so small?

Yes there are differences, Greeks saw warfare in a different light to us, that is true. But the greek who looks at the body of the macedonian he has just killed, and an american who looks at the body of an Afgani he has just killed, do they not feel that same sensation that same relief and sadness and confusion and all that which only music can describe?

There are problems with these claims even with regard to the simplest of experiences though. I doubt everyone would feel the same about losing their parents, some people hate their parents, others are indifferent, in some cultures your parents might not have even had a hand in raising you.

Thus, I think we should be even more sceptical of the idea that we have always acted and felt the same as societies. It posits a sort of permanence to the human experience, but humanity changes, both biologically and culturally.

I'm also sceptical about any descriptions about the experiences of someone killing another, I don't think everyone experiences the same thing, and what does it say that the only way we can define this experience is in terms of vague abstractions.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[JCamilo]

I can think in cheap horror tatics in Poe like teeth falling from people mouth in Ligeia, the violence in morgue murder, but this is besides the point, Poe is good not due his flaws, but his qualities. But anyways, the big point is that the begining of Iliad - or the fight between Achilles and Agamenon over the possession of a person (or slavery) does not present a moral lower standard than what we found today. I mean, I am not even pointing arabian countries such as Saudi Arabia, but Berlusconni didnt fell after 20 years in Italy for treating women as objects, but for economic problems. You can Puttin in russia, which odd the capacity to find only supermodels to work close ot him.
I would say, there seems to have some standard that humankind never keep up...

[stlukesguild]

98% of casualties in WWI were soldiers - 2% were civilians

98% of casualties in Iraq/Afganistan wars were civilians. 2% were soldiers.

Alex... where did you get these numbers? Considering the civilian deaths in the bombings of London, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima as well as the sieges of Berlin, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc... the civilian deaths in Poland, and Russia, and China... to say nothing of the Holocaust... I'm having a hard time picturing where your numbers came from. Perhaps they ring true if we are speaking solely of US casualties... but the numbers seem seriously skewed.

WWI not WWII:prrr:

OK... I will acknowledge that WWI probably involved far fewer civilian deaths in contrast to deaths of soldiers. Still I would question these numbers. Targeting the civilian population as a strategy of undermining the support for the war goes back well before WWII. The death toll of citizens in the American Civil War was quite staggering as a result of the "total war" strategies of Sherman (among others). The civilian losses in the 30-years war was immense. What were the indirect civilian losses? How many died as a result of starvation or illness (the great Spanish Influenza, for example)?

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Kindly go back to contemplating second-grade issues such as distinguishing fact from opinion. You have nothing to contribute here. In case you´re bored, I´m still waiting for an example of cheap scare tactics in Poe. Go play with that.
:lol: I don't even know where that thread is, anymore. Here, I'll just put your mind at ease since you seem to cling to the past: Poe uses no cheap scare tactics, ever . . . not even once in all of his literature. There.

I'll attempt to contribute something other than letting others know what kind of poster you are.

I think the problem with the back-and-forth between Pip and Alex here (which has been quite interesting) is that it's impossible to really begin to know how others feel things as abstract as love. I think maybe both of you are right, in that the answer lies somewhere in the middle. I think everyone experiences love in different ways, but, on the whole, the experience ends up being similar. Just look at all the descriptions of what it "feels" like to be in love, whether it be a description in poetry or from a friend--they're all pretty similar.

[Alexander III]

98% of casualties in WWI were soldiers - 2% were civilians

98% of casualties in Iraq/Afganistan wars were civilians. 2% were soldiers.

Alex... where did you get these numbers? Considering the civilian deaths in the bombings of London, Hamburg, Berlin, Dresden, Tokyo, Nagasaki, Hiroshima as well as the sieges of Berlin, Leningrad, Moscow, Stalingrad, etc... the civilian deaths in Poland, and Russia, and China... to say nothing of the Holocaust... I'm having a hard time picturing where your numbers came from. Perhaps they ring true if we are speaking solely of US casualties... but the numbers seem seriously skewed.

WWI not WWII:prrr:

OK... I will acknowledge that WWI probably involved far fewer civilian deaths in contrast to deaths of soldiers. Still I would question these numbers. Targeting the civilian population as a strategy of undermining the support for the war goes back well before WWII. The death toll of citizens in the American Civil War was quite staggering as a result of the "total war" strategies of Sherman (among others). The civilian losses in the 30-years war was immense. What were the indirect civilian losses? How many died as a result of starvation or illness (the great Spanish Influenza, for example)?

I chose WWI for a specific reason, because yes there was some intentional civilian trageting, such as u-boatsa attacking Merchant ships and also cruise liners, or blokades starving people, the effects which hit Germany pretty hard. And there was unintentinal civilan targeting, such as the "rape of Belgium" caused by the german soldiers, moving trough tows and cities after the frustration and madness of the trenches. And on the Eastern Front? The Geramns took no pity on the Russians and much of what was to come in WWII between Russian and Germany, was foreshadowed in WWI - farmers were starved and crops ruined, lots of rape and lotting as well, and death for those few who dared interfere with the soldiers progression of rape and looting.

The point of my statistic was not to show how little civilans suffered in this war, they suffered just about as much as in most wars; the point of my statistic was to ilustrate how high the cost of life for soldiers was, that all those civilan casylaties which happen and are horrific were completley drawfed in this war by the sheer mass of dead soldiers.

There is a reason the Great War is remembered as the greatest and most bloody war ever seen, and the main reason for that is simply the numbers, of soldiers, the numbers of them who became casulaties, and the numbers of them who were conscripts and not volonteers.

[Alexander III]

Well, that means... nothing. Are you reading from a fortune cookie? I´m still waiting for an answer to my previous question: what was inaccurate about my description of the beginning of the Iliad? First you accuse me of not reading a book you clearly haven´t read or understood yourself, and now you just seem under the influence.

And just what is a sensation of death???

A sensation of death is the experiance of an idividual when faced by the possibility of his death or those of others he cares about. Fuc,k it, I have no idea how to explain a sensation of death, I will try and think of something later.

As for answering you, there was nothing "inacurate about your description of the begining of the Illiad - there problem was that when men read books, they finish with more than just facts, if you read and all you get are facts out of it, I can't help but feel you are doing it wrong.

As If I said Gatsby was dull because it was about this rich man who was in love with this girl, but nothing really happened it was just rich people being rich and drunk.

[Ragnar Freund]

gone.

[papayahed]

~

R e m i n d e r

Please refrain from posting in this section of the Forum

if you feel you are unable to show respect towards those who do not share your thoughts and beliefs.

Posts containing personal and/or inflammatory comments will be removed without further warning.