Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why I Hate This Town...

Rate this topic


necrovore
 Share

Recommended Posts

“Bottom line, on January they 4th they are going to the church publicly with my sins, and my children will be sitting in church at the time,” Hancock told FOXNews.com.

I think the moral of the story is that people are becoming so dependent on the State, that they now feel that they need help with every aspect of their life: including their private life and raising their children.

What gives this woman the right to ask outsiders (Fox News) to invade this community, just because the church is doing what they always do?

How about she takes responsibility for her life and children, and stops sending them to this church, if she really doesn't want anything to do with them anymore? Why try instead to ask for pressure from outsiders, to change their rules in her favor?

The claims that they are somehow stalking her are the most annoying: they have the right to talk about anything they want at church, including a former member who did something bad. (Hell, we have an active thread on Greenspan right now :rolleyes: ) The fact is that she wants to keep being a part of this nonsense, and she is using her children to keep the connection alive, and now she wants Fox News to come in and tell the other kids to play nice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't say that Fox News was the State, but that people were becoming too dependant on it. Fox News come in to play as an outside entity which can, through media pressure, change behavior, at least in the woman's mind.

How is dependancy come into play, you would ask? People are disinclinded to solve thier own problems, because they have been braiwashed into running to an authority figure, in this case represented by the news media, to run interference for them.

This is what is being taught in government schools. As an example, my youngest son is told, when confronted by a bully, to run away and tell a teacher. In my day, we punched the bully in the nose. They have Guidence classes that proport to teach them how to handle social problems, which I then counteract by teaching him the right way to do things, things that will teach him independance and clear ethics.

The majority of parents do not do this, and have not for years, which is why we have parents today with no clear ethical direction in thier own lives, unable to make a clear choice without being told how to think, or, relying on others to intervene in thier behalf.

Edited by Maximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't say that Fox News was the State, but that people were becoming too dependant on it.

That I understand, but it's quite a leap to say that the reason that Fox news is involved is because of that prevailing psychology. Also since a potential alternate explanation which is that Fox news is entirely private and she doesn't have that psychology, and that would perfectly explain her behavior, he's got a lot of extra evidence to bring.

Otherwise, his assessment shoudl be given the attention due to all other pure speculation.

Fox News come in to play as an outside entity which can, through media pressure, change behavior, at least in the woman's mind.

Agreed. Where in the article does it say that she brought Fox News in? The alternate explanation is that they heard about the story and thought it would be interesting. (of course they thing high speed chases in LA are interesting national news, but then one woudl accuse them of bad journalism, not serving the interests of a woman who has an over active social dependency) Getting a story. that is what private news agencies do, yeah?

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when is Fox News the State? And what is she asking Fox to do for her exactly?

Here are some of the facts: She was asked to either break up with the guy, or leave the church. In response, she tried to break up with the guy about 10 times, but she didn't have the strength to do it (her words).

At this point she was asked to leave: she says otherwise, but based on the two facts listed above: I think it's safe to say that this part of the article is false: "When she wasn’t willing to obey the church's orders to leave him, she decided to leave the church instead, allowing her two children to remain active members."

The truth is, most likely, that she was asked to leave again, having failed to comply with the church's request to break up with the guy.

What she is asking Fox to do is help to get her back into the church, obviously.(without having to dump the guy) It is ridiculous to think that she is trying to do what the article implies: stop them from making her "sins" public, since I'm reading about those sins on a national outlet - as I'm sure her children are as well (and she's the source of the info).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the article, I was responding to his post, and speculating on possible motives. Of course it is the medias job to report on such things, and an outside person may have called thier attention to it.

That being said, the woman should simply have disassociated herself from this church and went about her buisiness. She should have known that, by airing her dirty laundry in public, that someone would talk about it. Churches are full of gossips and hypocrites, at least in my past experience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where in the article does it say that she brought Fox News in?

Come on:

1. She is the only source of the story. The church refused to even give their side.

2. They have the letter she received, scanned and posted online. She is the only one with access to that letter.

3. Both her and the boyfriend are posing for the pictures taken by Fox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on:

1. She is the only source of the story. The church refused to even give their side.

2. They have the letter she received, scanned and posted online. She is the only one with access to that letter.

3. Both her and the boyfriend are posing for the pictures taken by Fox.

Answer my question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall, this is how Jake "proves" things. He takes several stated facts, and then says "Come on guys, look at these facts! It must be the case! How else...? Hmph...alright, then YOU explain them."

Yeah I figured that already.

Of course arguing it let him skip right over the real essential in his assetion, that a psychology of dependency toward the state is somehow reflected by someone interacting with a private agency. By this logic of course, if I buy my food at McDonalds, I must have the psychology of a welfare statist who wants mandatory public soup kitchens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the moral of the story is that people are becoming so dependent on the State, that they now feel that they need help with every aspect of their life: including their private life and raising their children.

I don't see this at all! The moral of the story is that this woman has gone part way to moral independence from her church. She just needs to go the rest of the way, and "do a Dagny" on the day they make her "transgression" public. She should stand up in that church with her boyfriend and tell them all that she is proud of her relationship and that the church fathers can go to hell.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wasn't looking to prove anything. I was speculating, based on the only information available: that article.

I'm looking forward to any opinions others may have on the issue.

I think its more than clear who called the media in this case, but as far as the exact reason of her doing so, I can only speculate. As I have. If you think you know better, then say so, Kendall, stop posting obnoxious questions I have no way of knowing the answer to from half a globe away. I don't know the woman, I'm relying on a single article someone linked to.

Posting obvious observations such as that I'm only speculating on her psychology, not actually proving anything doesn't make you look smart, just stiff as a board.

I don't see this at all! The moral of the story is that this woman has gone part way to moral independence from her church. She just needs to go the rest of the way, and "do a Dagny" on the day they make her "transgression" public. She should stand up in that church with her boyfriend and tell them all that she is proud of her relationship and that the church fathers can go to hell.

If she does that, then I'll be proven wrong. I don't think it will happen (remember, she tried to break up with the boyfriend many times, that's how much she wants to belong to this church), I think she'll most likely just find herself another church, but there is a chance that it will, sure.

Edited by Jake_Ellison
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, Fox likes to air dirty laundry. It's what their audience wants. If you look at the Most Read section on their website, about 50% of the stories are about sex, scandals and celebrities. There's no surprise there. As far as the woman calling down the wrath of Fox News, I don't see any evidence. We don't know how the network got a hold of this story only that they did and they reported it.

As to the motivation of the woman, maybe she wants some sort of legal action taken on her behalf? It's probably not a nice feeling to know a place you once trusted is about make public the things they asked you to trust them with. Sure, it wasn't the smartest move on her part. But I don't agree with the churches actions, although it seems like the most logical thing a church should do considering the nature of their services -- to bestow and exploit guilt and ignorance.

Are there people who are very dependent on others? Yes. How this particular story shows people are more dependent on the State, I'm not really for sure. But if you want to deeply psychologize you can make whatever guesses about the motives you want here. Fox didn't have to run the story. The woman didn't have to tell anyone. The church didn't have to be a bunch of douches. Well, scratch that, churches always have to be horrible.

I don't know her motivations. I think the whole thing is stupid all around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indeed. Sophia Petrillo alone can claim to have had sex with half of the elegible bachelors in Miami over 60. Blanche Deveraux had the other half- several times ;):)

I'm sure the churches attendees will be outright shocked and appalled by learning that an unmarried woman had sex with her boyfriend. Such a thing never happens in this country, especially not in Florida, the bastion of chastity and sinlessness.

(sarcasm)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A church in Jacksonville, Fla. has warned a woman that if she does not repent from her sinful fornication that they will "tell it to the congregation".

I'm wondering what, if any, grounds she has to legally object to their publicly broadcasting her sexual activities.

My first thought is; if you accept the mystical tomes of the Bible as your guide to life, you may have to suffer the consequences of bizarre practices and rituals. Hey, they show her what it says in the bible, right?

However, I acknowledge it may not be that easy. I suspect we may need to know more details to decide whether or not she has some expectation of privacy in this matter. For example, how did the church come to know about her relationship? Did she tell them? Etc. etc.

PS: I see now that this was brought up before, something I didn't get from the original topic title. I merged my thread with this one.

Edited by RationalBiker
Merged Topic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm wondering what, if any, grounds she has to legally object to their publicly broadcasting her sexual activities.

There is already a thread on this topic somewhere on oo.net, but I think it is strange that she is worried about her church going public at the congregation, and yet she already went public by confiding in Fox News. com and telling her story to them and them putting up her story on their front page a few days ago.

I don't think she is so worried about it being made public as she is worried about being condemned by the church with her teen aged children hearing the condemnation.

If she is serious about leaving the church because they don't want her to have an sexual loving relationship outside of wedlock, then she ought to be proud that she is in love and change her moral code to one of rational self-interest in loving the new man in her life. Instead, it seems what she wants to do is to prevent the church from condemning her -- evidently by shaming them by herself going public with the story.

I think the whole thing is bizarre. But I think that is what happens when one accepts a moral authority over one's life and actions instead of thinking for oneself using a rational code of ethics. In Objectivism, each individual is responsible for understanding the rational virtues and acting on them according to that understanding. It doesn't mean that those violating them cannot be ousted, but it does mean that we do not accept the idea of having to confide in a moral authority, aside from understanding that someone else -- a true Objectivist philosopher -- would understand the ethics perhaps better than oneself and turn to them for abstract advise.

In other words, she did break her moral code -- and is continuing to break that moral code -- so why is she complaining that the church upholding that code wants to condemn her? I think she may be seeking forgiveness instead of condemnation, but it looks like the church is not going to forgive her. And I don't think that is really anyone else's business except for the church and herself to decide what to do about it. She left the church, so it shouldn't matter to her, unless she still accepts their moral code and their moral authority, which she shouldn't. She should get a better morality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish more churches would do this. If they would actually live by the Bible and show their true colors, people would flee them in droves.

Consistency is the hobgoblin of better people.

If DIM has some truth to it, that will act II Kelly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish more churches would do this. If they would actually live by the Bible and show their true colors, people would flee them in droves.

I doubt it:

"Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality, you have cried that your code had been broken, that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required. You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. Your victims took the blame and struggled on, with your curses as reward for their martyrdom -- while you went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good? -- by what standard?

"You wanted to know John Galt's identity. I am the man who has asked that question...."

The woman in the original story is an example of the person who cheats on her code of morality and then blames herself rather than the code of morality. In this instance, she is rebelling against the public shaming which the church has adopted, but not against the code of morality itself. She has cheated on her code of morality, and blames herself. She wouldn't dare challenge the notion that it's morally wrong to sleep with someone you're not married to. Cheat on it, sure, but not challenge it.

This sort of shaming exemplifies the rise of religion as a power in society. Most of the people in this woman's church are probably perfectly willing to go along with public shaming. I'm sure they'd like to extend that sort of thing into government as well. I doubt they will be shamed out of shaming by the appearance of the news article, either. In fact, since no moral basis for opposing shaming has been presented, shaming probably will become more popular and more widespread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...