"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."

-- Bill for Religious Freedom, 1779. Papers 2:545

DR Wills: "The tete-a-tete between marcfrans and Kapitein Andre, interestingly--and probably unwittingly, further illustrates the problem described in the author's brief essay: which is, that because no standard of morality is universally accepted, governments (as well as individuals) are largely unaccountable."

Ms. Adamson's article has less to do with the political and philosophical positions debated between myself and marcfrans, and more to do with typical governmental corruption, pork barreling, favoritism and lobbying by special interest groups, of which the latter directly contradicts liberal (popular, majoritarian - one man, one vote) democracy. However, some may argue that unless the West transitions to full direct democracy, we should expect our elite representatives to choosing the "higher path" for the rest of us.

Furthermore, Ms. Adamson is more concerned in her articles with anti-Semitism and Judaeism-related issues than anything abstract.

DR Wills: "In fact, postmodernism unequivocally asserts (paradoxically) the disclaimer against any shared notion of morality.
That is not to say, however, that no standard of morality exists; only, that none is universally accepted.  Thus, ours is--and will for some time continue to be--a world at war (and with states misappropriating funds pretty much willy-nilly)."

Post-modernism neither exists as a personal or social doctrine, nor in isolation. Typically, Jews, Christians, Muslims and Hindus are not considered post-modern, however, these religions do not agree on a universal, objective and abstract moral standard.

The tete-a-tete between marcfrans and Kapitein Andre, interestingly--and probably unwittingly, further illustrates the problem described in the author's brief essay: which is, that because no standard of morality is universally accepted, governments (as well as individuals) are largely unaccountable.  In fact, postmodernism unequivocally asserts (paradoxically) the disclaimer against any shared notion of morality.

That is not to say, however, that no standard of morality exists; only, that none is universally accepted.  Thus, ours is--and will for some time continue to be--a world at war (and with states misappropriating funds pretty much willy-nilly).

@ Kapitein Andre

1) No, the distinction is not black and white "in theory".  It is very unlikely that one could find much agreement among, say, the typical Westerner and the typical mainland Chinese about the meaning of abstract concepts like "tyranny" and "democracy".  Which means that even "in theory" very little is black and white, because their is very little agreement about the "theory" (or theories) itself.  A theory is an 'explanation' of a certain reality, so it is nonsensical to juxtapose 'theory' to 'reality', but that doesn't stop most people from doing so.  They do not understand the philosophical distinction between 'bad' theories and 'better' theories, or bad understanding and better (but always incomplete) understanding.  All human theories (understanding) will be fallable, limited, incomplete, and therefore never totally "white" nor "black".   Even "in theory" the distinction between tyranny and democracy will inevitably be 'grey'; it should therefore not be surprising that people's understanding of matching their theories to specific observations (in "practice" if you will) will be grey too.   Only 'fundamentalists' can adhere to beliefs-with-certainty. 

Nevertheless, a moral person will make the 'honest' (moral) effort to make his or her best judgement in making the distinction between tyranny and democracy, and recognise that actual political systems will always imperfectly adhere to these 'models', but there cannot be moral equivalency between actual tyrannies and democracies.   If you abandon the need (obligation) to make moral judgements, then your 'arguments' can no longer carry any moral weight and become purely self-serving commercials. 

2) Yes, it is quite obvious that you are not "aware" that you have moral duties.  Given that this lack of awareness appears to be increasingly shared by other westerners, it is inconceivable that western civilisation can survive much longer, because people will only make the necessary sacrifices out of a sense of duty.  

You may think it 'funny' to create a strawman, i.e. to imply that I claimed it to be in my domain to absolve you from moral duty. But that is fundamentally dishonest, for I did no such thing.   Your duty to make necessary moral judgements is entirely yours, and for life (including yours) to be 'purposeful' there can be no "absolution".

3)  No, I do NOT "agree to disagree".  Morality does not reside in any arbitrary concept of "the nation".  There can only be one HUMAN morality.  There is no such thing as a French morality, or a Chinese morality, or an eskimo morality, etc....  There may be differing conceptions or understandings of human morality that are widely shared by French people, or Chinese people, etc... And these understandings surely will or can differ greatly in their degrees of incompleteness or 'error'.  But, the morality of human actions will not be determined by whether these actions are undertaken by French, or Chinese, or eskimos, etc... There can only be one human morality, i.e. whether human actions are good or bad will depend on the circumstances and the intentions of the human actors, not on whether they are French, Chinese, or whatever.   

4) I agree in principle that the value of individual freedom could be served by a variety of different polities.  Whether any particular polity can or will do so is largely an empirical matter, i.e. it will require observations, both historical observations as well as (honest) observations about its current distinguishing features and arrangements.           

Rondi Adamson: " the money was given [...] to various cultural, religious and ethnic groups who would be likely to support Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty in the upcoming (October) provincial election."

In France, and it is probably the same in Canada, most subsidized "cultural" associations support the extreme left. What I find surprising is that the so called "right-wing" political parties are afraid to cancel the subsidies!

MarcFrans: "There IS a difference between a tyranny and a democracy..."

In theory, the distinction is black and white; however, we live in a very gray world.

MarcFrans: "Your comments on India and Israel in no way absolve you from your moral duty to make your own INFORMED (as best as you can) judgments."

I wasn't aware that I had a "moral duty" or that it was within your domain to "absolve" me of it.

MarcFrans: "It is well known that for you moral purpose resides in some arbitrary concept of "the nation". That is a terrible mistake."

Then we should agree to disagree.

MarcFrans: "Nations can - and do!! - have value, but only to the extent that they can serve the purpose of the individual's freedom."

The value you place in nations could be served by any other variety of supranational or subnational polity and therefore is instrumental and non-exclusive at best.

MarcFrans: "Clearly there is wide philosophical disagreement in the world about the moral content of "individual freedom", which is why there can be no genuine world government and world nation."

Agreed.

MarcFrans: "Does your silly comment suggest that you DO think that groups attacking a democratic polity would be the moral equivalent of groups supporting another democracy? Or does this question no longer arise in postmodern Europe's culture of extreme moral relativism?"

No need to resort to words such as "silly," or would you prefer we correspond in French? Regarding your two questions: (1) given my disdain for attempts at objectivity and abstraction, it would have to depend on my personal interests and affinities; (2) you should direct this question towards extreme European moral relativists.

MarcFrans: "Your last point is worthy of an adolescent."

As is your time and energy as they find better use blogging than working, screwing, travelling or playing tennis or golf.

MarcFrans: "If I were you, I would not be so sure of Amsterdamsky's motivations."

What is he, international man of mystery? Ah, intrigue abounds at the Brussels Journal.

@ Kapitein Andre

1) Of course, everybody and every group has a positive opinion of themselves.  That does not absolve you from the duty to make your own moral judgments.   There IS a difference between a tyranny and a democracy, and whether tyrants and their followers are unable to make that distinction, or not, should be totally irrelevant for you in making your own judgments.  

2) Your comments on India and Israel in no way absolve you from your moral duty to make your own INFORMED (as best as you can) judgments.  It is not because certain individuals and groups express 'grievances' that all their actions are justified.  No political system can satisfy all the desires of ALL their citizens, but informed and honest people can surely make broad normative judgements about empirically observable political systems.  The current Prime Minister of India is a Sikh, and there is no moral equivalency between the way the aspirations of "Sikhs" are met in India, and, say, the way the aspirations of 'Tibetans' are dealt with in China, or those of 'Kurds' under Saddam's Baath-Iraq.

3)  Violence may well be "cathartic...useful...empowering", but its morality will entirely depend on the nature of the intent or purpose behind it, i.e. what it is intended to achieve.  Everybody has to make their own individual judgement about that.   It is well known that for you moral purpose resides in some arbitrary concept of "the nation".    That is a terrible mistake.  Nations can - and do!! - have value, but only to the extent that they can serve the purpose of the individual's freedom.  Clearly there is wide philosophical disagreement in the world about the moral content of "individual freedom", which is why there can be no genuine world government and world nation.

4)  No, the obvious fact that I can not be "the moral arbiter" does not absolve you from the necessity to make your own moral judgements.   Does your silly comment suggest that you DO think that groups attacking a democratic polity would be the moral equivalent of groups supporting another democracy?   Or does this question no longer arise in postmodern Europe's culture of extreme moral relativism?  

5) Your last point is worthy of an adolescent.  If I were you, I would not be so sure of Amsterdamsky's motivations.  And you would be well advised to judge him on the actual content of his rantings rather than on your 'projections'.   

MarcFrans: "Not all groups have morally equivalent agendas, and 'resistance' to a democratic polity is not the moral equivalent of 'resistance' to a tirannical regime."

According to various individuals and groups, certain democratic states are tyrannical, at least insofar as they are concerned.

MarcFrans: "Both Israel and India are genuine democratic states (with regular power alternation and freedom of political speech), and they also respect de facto the basic constitutional rights of ALL their citizens. This does not mean that they are perfect democracies - no one is perfect - but they adhere to the essentials of democracy."

At most one could argue that Israel and India respect de jure the constitutional rights of their citizenry. Muslims and Sikhs in India, and Muslims and Druze in Israel, consider that their respective states de facto treat them as second-class citizens. I will not venture into analysing the legitimacy of these claims or whether or not these resistance movements are representative of the peoples they claim to represent, anymore than I can assess here the legitimacy of or popular support for the IRA or ETA. Perhaps your "essentials of democracy" and your acceptability of imperfection is not enough for the aforementioned minorities.

MarcFrans: "Groups supporting a democratic polity are NOT the moral equivalent of groups attacking another democratic polity."

Since when did you become the moral arbiter?

MarcFrans: "It may well be that NOT ALL the particular aspirations of EVERY individual Sikh or every "Sikh organisation" can be met within the Indian political system.  But, there can be no justification for any violent "resistance" within the democratic Indian polity.  Given the presence of freedom of political speech in that polity there are numerous nonviolent alternatives available to 'malcontents', and history shows that the system has been changing and adapting itself over time in ways that maintain the essential freedoms for ALL."

Violence is as much cathartic as it is useful. It is empowering to discontented minorities. Moreover, if the state uses violence to prevent the self-determination and sovereignty of a nation, is it not appropriate to respond with violence not unlike any nation-state that is under attack from another? Furthermore, if the Allies deemed it necessary to engage in total war against Germany - the deliberate bombings of civilian targets which had little impact on either the Wehrmacht or industrial production - can self-defense include total war?

MarcFrans: "One would hope that you do not want to appear to be morally 'blindfolded' as badly as Amsterdamsky..."

If you take Amsterdamsky's moral positions seriously beyond his playing devil's advocate and seizing upon anything Pro-Israeli, then perhaps you need a diversion from the blogosphere, like a girlfriend, prostitute, one-night stand, etc.

@ Kapitein Andre

We can certainly agree that all "charitable organisations" should be "held under close scrutiny".  Perhaps, we even agree that Canadian public funds should in principle NOT be used to subsidise 'Canadian' organisations with political and social agendas elsewhere in the world. 

But, we disagree on your 'blanket' refusal to make necessary moral judgments, i.e. your extreme moral relativism.   Not all groups have morally equivalent agendas, and "resistance" to a democratic polity is not the moral equivalent of "resistance" to a tyrannical regime.

Both Israel and India are genuine democratic states (with regular power alternation and freedom of political speech), and they also respect de facto the basic constitutional rights of ALL their citizens.  This does not mean that they are perfect democracies - no one is perfect - but they adhere to the essentials of democracy.   Groups supporting a democratic polity are NOT the moral equivalent of groups attacking another democratic polity.   

It may well be that NOT ALL the particular aspirations of EVERY individual Sikh or every "Sikh organisation" can be met within the Indian political system.  But, there can be no justification for any violent "resistance" within the democratic Indian polity.  Given the presence of freedom of political speech in that polity there are numerous nonviolent alternatives available to 'malcontents', and history shows that the system has been changing and adapting itself over time in ways that maintain the essential freedoms for ALL.

One would hope that you do not want to appear to be morally 'blindfolded' as badly as Amsterdamsky.

Rondi Adamson: "While some of the groups who received money have a respected and established presence in Canada (for example, the United Jewish Appeal)..."

If the UJA is permitted to transfer donated monies to Israel for the procurement of tanks and "keep the [budgetary] promise" of whichever goverment is in power in Tel Aviv, surely Sikh organisations should be allowed to funnel similar funds to their resistance in India. Quite frankly, all of these charitable organisations, including the UJA should be audited and held under close scrutiny.

Yes, and I just can't wait until I get that decoder ring.  A lot of those Yiddish words just don't translate well.

First Quebec, now Ontario. Them Canadian Liberals really know how to waste taxpayers' money.

Amsterdamsky, that stuff you smoked must have been bad.

You must be on their payroll also. I hope to g-d you are not a US citizen otherwise you are committing treason (not that you would ever be prosecuted as most of Congress has already done the same thing).  Heil Israel our new masters!

Wow, how stupid of me. Here I thought this article was about Canada.

Might as well slam the evil Joooooish/US axis anyway... 

Gee that covers about several hours of black hole aid to Israel that goes from everything from building new synagoges in occupied palestine to cluster bombing Lebanese villages.