In which Vox has apparently confused me with himself

Vox obviously fancies himself a theologian, historian, and political commentator. He's finally let himself notice that I actually responded to him in detail before, and now he wants round two.

It's like trying to explain physics to a puppy. Anyone feel the urge to illuminate Evil Bender with regards to how rational thought can no more be the basis of morality than a hammer can be the basis for architecture? This is the same problem faced by those who believe in "science", which can never tell one what to do, only how to do it.

It also never ceases to astound me how left-oriented individuals constantly mistake the assertion for the actual. You'll have to show us that rational thought, EB, because the evidence for it thus far is certainly scanty. It would help if EB could start by rationally defining "good" and "evil" for our edification.

Before I respond in detail to any of this, I would like you to read my original post, and see that Vox has not detailed a response to any of the substance of my criticism, or to my critique of any of his original claims. His entire response is to call me an idiot and to attempt to reframe this argument as though I was the one that suggested humanism was the solution to all the world's ills, while he pretends there is substance to his "Judeo-Christian tradition is the solution to all the world's problems" argument.

With that in mind, and with the continuing invitation for Vox to articulate his position in any meaningful way, we move on.

No doubt Vox would love to live in a world where you don't need to be rational to be moral. But even he has to know that a system of morality that can't be articulated through reason is completely worthless. Vox apparently isn't capable of understanding that many people, religious and non-religious alike, agree that there's no other standard for making any sense of "good" and "evil."

Vox would no doubt like us to believe that the Judeo-Christian tradition (which he has still yet to define in any meaningful way) is the souce of the Golden Rule, which essentially every belief system has adopted as a central tenant. But it wasn't: that philosophy has roots around the world, from the ancient Greeks to any number of Eastern cultures. 

But I'm not going to fall for Vox's debate of articulating an entirely system of morality, because he cannot even articulate what his is. Remember, my initial response was due to his claim that the solution to slavery was merely to convert the world to the Judeo-Christian tradition. 

His reasoning for this is that some Christians fought against slavery and therefore it is the only workable solution. Never mind that he has yet to establish how any of this will happen, any more than he's been able to establish the causal link between "humanism" (or "feminism") (or "communism"–he seems to believe they're all the same) and slave trafficking. For Vox, simply asserting that he's right without bothering to address the causal argument at all or to even consider what his assumptions or terminology mean (how do you define feminism, Vox? humanism? "Judeo-Christian"? What exactly does your belief system promote?). He has yet to substantively reply to any critique of his original claims by me or anyone else. His entire response is a weak attempt at slight-of-hand to cover for his own inability to formulate an argument.

Considering that none of those three concepts has ever been one of the primary, secondary or tertiary motivations for institutional slavery in any historical culture,* and furthermore, such concepts have never been eliminated or even quantified, this is one of the most deeply silly statements to infest the blogosphere in the brief history of blogging.

If Evil Bender didn't exist, I'm not sure he could be properly imagined in all his stupendous wonder.

*1. Personal enrichment. 2. Cheap labor. 3. Personal gratification. 4. Reducing military capacity. One rather doubts the Turks hated their Janissaries or that Julius Caesar cared much one way or another about 53,000 Auduatuci he enslaved in 57 BC.

Vox, let me say this very clearly, because you obviously haven't been listening: it is bigoted to enslave another to benefit yourself. And while you would like to go throw in a historical reference to "prove" differently, slavery, at least as it has existed in recent historical time (you know, the one's you're basing you "tradition will solve it" argument on), has required the slave-holders to objectify and dehumanize their slaves, because it's essentially impossible to systematically abuse another person through slavery until you can convince yourself they're not like you at all.

Hatred and intolerance of the kind that Vox spews on a daily basis provides the pseudo-intellectual framework that allows people to continually find ways to look at other people and conclude they're not people at all. Every joke about rape, every move to lump entire populations into Othered categories furthers the cause of slavery. The humanist worldview that demands that we are all human all worthy of human rights and respect is not a cause of slavery. But Vox's continued willingness to turn other people into the Other is part of the same framework–one which has many roots in Judeo-Christian thought–most certainly reinforces a worldview where slavery can be acceptable.