Doomsday

Angels in America challenges dogma and relativism by creating its own moral universe. But this new universe is at odds with variety of other universes, for example, the Mormon universe, which considers homosexuality an affront to G-d. If you create a moral universe you’re bound to step on someone’s toes. The skeptic steps on everyone’s toes.

Skepticism, it seems, is a means to a democratic end, which to the best of my knowledge is a means to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. But “the pursuit of happiness” always sounded like an empty phrase and certainly not one of the cardinal goals in life. Can one pursue happiness? Should one to pursue happiness? Or to be straight – wouldn’t the pursuit of “satisfaction” or “contentment,” words that encompass a greater scope of human experience, be a better goal?

Victor Frankel says that as long as there is meaning in occurrences the human mind can bare the pain.

And on the topic of pain: Malunkyaputta once asked the Buddha a number of questions including, “is the universe eternal?” “Is the soul the same as the body?” “Does the Tathagata (Buddha) exist after death?” The Buddha replied, “The holy life does not depend on these views.”

A moral world is necessary for greater good and questions are necessary to come to a moral understanding, but should every dogma be questioned? Sometimes the hermeneutics of trust are a greater means to moral understanding, but then again, the end goal must be defined.

Note: I published a link to an interview with Kushner – Mother Jones – that Prof Q refers to in her book. Maybe he felt like he didn’t need to justify or explain what “progressive” meant for the magazine, but his end goal is unclear. I’m wary.