Re: domain for Zarcae

[Saoirse Zarcae <warzaelzarcae@excite.com>]

[: hacktivism :]

Alright boys and girls, we're goin' to have some fun! First, we're going to
play "Find the Exclusivist!" heh. (Nothing against Beaudreaux, simply he's
elucidating a common attitudinal element to the underground....so I'm going
to point it out!)


On Tue, 26 Sep 2000 03:47:06 EDT, hacktivism@tao.ca wrote:

>  [: hacktivism :]
>  
>  since when is religon part of hactivism????? i realize its great to keep
an 
>  open mind. lets keep this area free of religious schtick. both women and
men 
>  are equal. both have their places in history.jjjf

  First: to emphasize that men and women are equal in the sight of God. I'd
be the first to protest against people stating that women cannot be
revolutionaries of the same quality and skill as men. Christian examples
abound: Joan of Arc, Mary Magdalene, Deborah (Book of Judges), as well as
the mother of King Josiah, etc etc. When I said "Sons of God", I was quoting
directly from the Sermon on the Mount. 

  Second: The whole point of Zarcae is that we emphasize that to seperate
faith and deed are foolish. We believe that when action is mixed with
religious faith as the motivational factor, that the action itself gains a
heightened level of morality and reason for existence. Simply saying
"hacking for hacking's sake" is insufficient for moral casuality, since to
say such is merely reflexive. It comes no closer to answering the essential
question ("Where in hacking does the moral worth lie?") that would saying
"poetry for poetry's sake". 

  Third: the usual cry of "Let's try to be open-minded, BUT...." is a
ridiculous and innately fallacious statement. Let's examine. When someone
says "let's be open-minded", it can generally be agreed that this person is
trying to be inclusive of others' viewpoints. This is the position of the
moral relativist (which the majority of the underground adheres to, I might
add. This leads to the indecisiveness among us all to make any real decision
about the future of our people). Moral relativists claim that religious
people, and particuarly Christians, with their ugly "Absolute" viewpoint
(i.e., Good and Evil are absolute values, not subjective)are "exclusive" of
others. (that's where the "BUT" part of the "Let's try to be open-minded
BUT....). It's almost no fun arguing with relativists/ They contradict
themselves with the "but." By saying "but" they THEMSELF are making an
exclusive statement! Therefore, by logical extension, you cannot be
all-encompassing as a relativist, since you HAVE to exclude something! Being
a pure "open-minded" would mean simply accepting Christianity on the same
level as Nazism, or fascism. Yet curiously enough, no relativist does this
(place it on that same level. To a relativist, Christianity is always
"dirty".)

   Fourth: to elaborate on the point earlier. There MUST be an Absolute
truth, against which we base the concepts themselves of Good and Evil. When
we say that the actions of the government, or someone are "wrong", then
without an absolute standard of right and wrong to which we are all bound
(God, etc.) then we run into what is crudely called the great "Rule of Says
Who"!

Example:

Statement:   "Rape is wrong". 

The answer a relativist staying true to his philosophy would have to give:
"Says who?"

You could replace the word "rape" with "murder", "incest", etc. it becomes
crystal-clear that the relativist position as taken by Beaudreaux cannot
stand. Either we hold ourselves and everyone else accountable, or we hold no
one accountable, and anarchy reigns. 

   Fifth: I'd refer my readers to the quote above where Beaudreaux  states
"I realize its great to keep an open mind. lets keep this area free of
religious schtick." Well, let me get this straight. We're supposed to be
"open-minded". but when anyone espouses something you disagree with, then
it's "schtick?" Let me see if I have this logic correctly. It's ok to say
things that you agree with, but when a truly radical opinion comes to the
forefront, then it's ok to call it names? Hrmmm...Illogical. If you're going
to be "open-minded" (and not merely "politically correct") then do so, sir,
instead of tossing off scornful names.....

  Sixth: The phrase "Sons of God" was a general term referring to humanity
as a whole. (i.e., check out C.S. Lewis's usage of "Sons of Adam, Daughters
of Eve" in his Narnia books as an example). Biblical references to "Sons of
God" generally do so in the Jewish tradition of referring back only through
the male line. Since by Genesis all men and women were born of Eve and Adam,
the phrase "Sons of God" means referring back to the first human ancestor,
and them back to his creator.

  Seventh: heh. I never have as much fun as when I argue apologetics....This
isn't a personal slam on Beaudreaux (just so everyone knows.) I'm just
responding to what I feel to be an immensely unfair comment, and assumption.


  Well, I hoped everyone enjoyed this tidbit of thought! Feel free to e-mail
me anytime in private to argue! I enjoy arguing Christian apologetics as
much as I do hacker apologetics. 

-Raschid
*Founder of Warzael Zarcae

'Taking liberties I see
People dying all around me!
Full of pride and evil greed, 
I keep quiet in a world of need!

What a hypocrite I am!

Casting darkness from the earth,
Sin decieves me like a curse
The world is covered in disease,
I sit back in ease!

What a hypocrite I am!"
- "Hypocrite", World Wide Message Tribe, Christian rave band



[: hacktivism :]
[: for unsubscribe instructions or list info consult the list FAQ :]
[: http://hacktivism.tao.ca/ :]