Is irreverence the best political stance?

[sandandfoam]

I came across this by Brendan Behan

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I value kindness to human beings first of all, and kindness to animals. I don't respect the law; I have a total irreverence for anything connected with society except that which makes the roads safer, the beer stronger, the food cheaper, and old men and women warmer in the winter, and happier in the summer.[/FONT]

I think he's right.
Look at the idiots running Europe. Disagreeing with them is a waste of time (Look at Ireland's Lisbon referendum). Engaging with politicians only encourages them. I think the future lies in cultivating a healthy irreverence for them and their laws.

 

[lunamoth]

I came across this by Brendan Behan

I think he's right.
Look at the idiots running Europe. Disagreeing with them is a waste of time (Look at Ireland's Lisbon referendum). Engaging with politicians only encourages them. I think the future lies in cultivating a healthy irreverence for them and their laws.

What do you do when the roads are less safe, beer and food are scarce, and old women and men are cold and uncomfortable?

 

[sandandfoam]

What do you do when the roads are less safe, beer and food are scarce, and old women and men are cold and uncomfortable?

Pouring a few billion into the banks seems to be the best idea around at the moment.
Arresting anyone who offends the dignity of the office of politicians also seems like a great plan Biffo on the Bog artist Conor Casby hands more works to police - Times Online
(By the way bog is slang for toilet here and Biffo is an acronym well deserved by our Taoiseach)

 

[lunamoth]

Pouring a few billion into the banks seems to be the best idea around at the moment.
Arresting anyone who offends the dignity of the office of politicians also seems like a great plan Biffo on the Bog artist Conor Casby hands more works to police - Times Online

I don't understand your topic I guess.

 

[tomspug]

Law is the only thing holding the world together. It is the idea that simply establishing and meeting needs can do the same thing that is tearing the world apart. It's like collective survivalism, and it's the reason we have wars in the first place.

 

[sandandfoam]

Law is the only thing holding the world together.

Not the case. How many international laws does the US respect? Not the Geneva convention when it suits them. How many treaties is it not signed up to?
Law is a weapon for the powerful - just look at the anti marijuana law Why is Marijuana Illegal?.

Look how the law is being used against that artist in the link in post #3.
I have no respect for law. Especially stupid law. Respect and kindness for and towards people and animals is law enough.

 

[lunamoth]

I agree that it is love that holds the world together. Laws should be a tool for establishing peace and fairness. We are interdependent so somehow we need to find ways to agree on fair treatment. We are far from that now, but I don't think that we can just remove ourselves from the whole enterprise and say that's the best thing.

 

[sandandfoam]

Laws should be a tool for establishing peace and fairness. We are interdependent so somehow we need to find ways to agree on fair treatment. We are far from that now, but I don't think that we can just remove ourselves from the whole enterprise and say that's the best thing.

Laws are about keeping those who are wealthy and powerful in exactly that condition.
I don't think the majority of us are engaged in 'the whole enterprise' anyway. I cite EU and political reaction to Ireland's rejection of Lisbon as evidence of that. As further evidence think about that artist and the reaction to him. Do you think there'd be a big police investigation if someone drew a picture of me sitting on the bog?

 

[lunamoth]

Laws are about keeping those who are wealthy and powerful in exactly that condition.

Yes, I've heard that view before. Very cynical.

So what do you propose we do? Every man for himself?

Do you think that the Baha'i Laws (have you read the Kitab-i-Aqdas yet?) are unjust and only there to keep the wealthy and powerful on top?

I don't think the majority of us are engaged in 'the whole enterprise' anyway.

So is that a good excuse? You don't think you have any responsibility to other people?

I cite EU and political reaction to Ireland's rejection of Lisbon as evidence of that. As further evidence think about that artist and the reaction to him. Do you think there'd be a big police investigation if someone drew a picture of me sitting on the bog?

I don't understand the political landscape in Ireland and the EU. I get it that you think the whole thing has gone to hell in a handbasket.

Do you know that the Baha'i Faith laws say that you should obey your government as long as it does not ask you to betray your faith?

Better to be 'detached' (not irreverant, not cynical) yet engaged in doing what you can to make things better. The Baha'i Faith has many wonderful teachings on how to go about this.

 

[tomspug]

Not the case. How many international laws does the US respect? Not the Geneva convention when it suits them. How many treaties is it not signed up to?

But without that international law, there would be no accountability. Notice how the US has fallen into disfavor because of "breaking the law". You've proved my point!

 

[tomspug]

I agree that it is love that holds the world together.

True law, by definition, is love. If not, then why did God create laws?

 

[lunamoth]

True law, by definition, is love. If not, then why did God create laws?

I agree that the only True law is love.

One way I've heard it put is that laws are a path that if followed will help us love one another.

 

[sandandfoam]

Yes, I've heard that view before. Very cynical.

So what do you propose we do? Every man for himself?

Absolutely not. As I stated previously
Respect and kindness for and towards people and animals is law enough.

Do you think that the Baha'i Laws (have you read the Kitab-i-Aqdas yet?) are unjust and only there to keep the wealthy and powerful on top?

That's not comparing apples with apples

So is that a good excuse? You don't think you have any responsibility to other people?

From the op

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I value kindness to human beings first of all, and kindness to animals[/FONT]

I don't understand the political landscape in Ireland and the EU. I get it that you think the whole thing has gone to hell in a handbasket.

Yes I do. Did you know that the Prime Minister of our little country pays himself more than your president? More than the Prime minister of England?

Do you know that the Baha'i Faith laws say that you should obey your government as long as it does not ask you to betray your faith?

I do. I see no tension between adopting a position of irreverence towards our borderline corrupt government and my faith.
Also I am, and make no claim to being perfect. Injustice and inequity gall me. Obedience has become difficult

Better to be 'detached' (not irreverant, not cynical) yet engaged in doing what you can to make things better.

That seems like the American way. Our parliament is populated by corrupt overpaid wasters who slap each others backs and pay themselves kings ransoms. Between pensions/allowances/expenses/staff/wages most of them cost several hundred thousand euro a year. It's one of the biggest heists in history.
There is no alternative to vote for. If there was the vote would be re-run until a satisfactory outcome was achieved.
Being irreverent is what I can do to make things better.

 

[tomspug]

Absolutely not. As I stated previously
Respect and kindness for and towards people and animals is law enough.

Only in a world where respect and kindness for and towards people and animals is natural and constant. Law is an attempt to maintain respect and kindness, regardless of how futile or corrupt it may be.

 

[lunamoth]

Absolutely not. As I stated previously
Respect and kindness for and towards people and animals is law enough.




That's not comparing apples with apples




From the op






Yes I do. Did you know that the Prime Minister of our little country pays himself more than your president? More than the Prime minister of England?


I do. I see no tension between adopting a position of irreverence towards our borderline corrupt government and my faith.
Also I am, and make no claim to being perfect. Injustice and inequity gall me. Obedience has become difficult

That seems like the American way. Our parliament is populated by corrupt overpaid wasters who slap each others backs and pay themselves kings ransoms. Between pensions/allowances/expenses/staff/wages most of them cost several hundred thousand euro a year. It's one of the biggest heists in history.
There is no alternative to vote for. If there was the vote would be re-run until a satisfactory outcome was achieved.
Being irreverent is what I can do to make things better.

Fair enough Stephen and in a way I agree with your attitude. Our governments will always fall short and we really only can control our personal choices. But I am not an anarchist. I think that part of loving kindness to others includes trying to work out fairness and the way humans do that is through government and law. At times we must be disobedient to laws when they conflict with love.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Irreverence is the best stance in relation to any authoritative body.

 

[Rhonan]

Law is the only thing holding the world together. It is the idea that simply establishing and meeting needs can do the same thing that is tearing the world apart. It's like collective survivalism, and it's the reason we have wars in the first place.

:clap


True.

Laws however, by themselves are just words. People break the law; the law does not prevent people from breaking the law. However, if you took away the laws, and erased the principle of law from the minds of the people...

... Humanity would revert to barbarism. There would be anarchy, people would be totally selfish as they would have no reason to obey any authority from any higher power, religion, God, or government. There would be no punishment for their actions. Men would kill at whim with no reason to feel remorse. They wouldn't have to answer to anyone - so even if they did feel bad, they would get over it. People would kill and steal and rob for their own survival - just as the animals do. There would be no reason to love each other as there would be no reason to follow the ways of Christ - there would be no knowledge of this anyway.

We all think that if laws were removed from the system that people would still behave in a civilized manner - but that would be because after years of being taught morality and law, they wouldnt be able to kick the habit. Yet, eventually, people would begin to do things that would violate the law if it existed. They would do this because they would find the idea "the right thing to do" as silly and stupid - as they would have no one to answer to.

Humans are selfish animals - morality and law is the only thing that keeps us from raping, stealing, and killing on a daily basis. Many people would not do this however, but that's because they wouldn't give up their concepts of morality and law.

If you don't believe that society would go south upon removal of the law then make it legal to kill, drink & drive, and do all drugs. Then you will see society degenerate into hell on earth.

 

[Yerda]

Laws are about keeping those who are wealthy and powerful in exactly that condition.

Hehe. You sound like an angry Marxist, Stee. You mind if I calll you Stee? My brother is called Stephen and I like shortening it.

I don't disagree entirely. I think laws are convenient means for people to preserve what they have, even when what they have is criminal. I don't think the impact of the law (or its enforecers) can be completely disregarded though. Settling disputes can be about killing your enemy (possibly being killed), or it can be about appealing to the power of an external agency. I'd rather people called the polis when the law is broken as opposed to picking up a knife (the weapon of choice in these parts). I'd also prefer that the police weren't ideologically opposed to protest and dissent.

What do you think?

 

[sandandfoam]

Hehe. You sound like an angry Marxist, Stee. You mind if I calll you Stee? My brother is called Stephen and I like shortening it.

I don't disagree entirely. I think laws are convenient means for people to preserve what they have, even when what they have is criminal. I don't think the impact of the law (or its enforecers) can be completely disregarded though. Settling disputes can be about killing your enemy (possibly being killed), or it can be about appealing to the power of an external agency.

I'd rather people called the polis when the law is broken as opposed to picking up a knife (the weapon of choice in these parts). I'd also prefer that the police weren't ideologically opposed to protest and dissent.

What do you think?

Stee is fine, I've been called a lot worse!
I agree with you that it is helpful to have an external arbiter. I think if you add unaffordable lawyers it becomes a racket where the guy with the most expensive lawyers wins. If the law was for citizens High Court actions wouldn't cost hundreds of thousands.

I'd rather people called the polis when the law is broken as opposed to picking up a knife (the weapon of choice in these parts). I'd also prefer that the police weren't ideologically opposed to protest and dissent.

I agree.

Hehe. You sound like an angry Marxist,

ha! I'll take it as a compliment!
The politicians I admire have been from the far left so maybe you're not too far off.