Minutes of the DLS: March 4, 2004

We had 3 first time guests, 1 returning guest, and 1 alum.

Mr. Lerner started the meeting with his state of the society speech. After he went back to the bench to continue swinging his feet in mid-air, Mr. Wesley said that our Relay team would once again be themed “Themeless since 1803,” Mr. Trivedi overthrew the Digital Media committee, and several members invented their own committees.

New business began with Mr. Hansen’s “BIR: Religious belief is unnecessary for, and counter to, ethical theory and ethical practice.”

Mr. Elliott opposed the resolution because many people were both moral and religious. Also, his only non-religious roommate is a thieving, lying, drinking womanizer.

We temporarily suspended debate to graciously allow the judicial council from the Heap to profane our holy hall to inform us that they will be arguing in the negative at the inter-society debate. As they departed, Mr. Lerner tried – and alas, failed – to brain them with a log as we purged the hall of their contamination.

Debate then resumed with Ms. D’Andrea’s speech. She said that she agreed with the spirit of the resolution, which she took to be that one can be moral without having religion. However, this does not mean that religion is contrary to ethics.

Mr. Addison pointed out that we had not yet heard a definition for “ethics” and that religion provided a moral code, since religious beliefs are ethical beliefs.

A guest then said atheists and agnostics within a society are moral because they learn their morals from religious people in that society.

Ms. Prabhakar argued that morality does not exist outside of religion. The creation of a social contract was contemporary to the creation of religion, because religion was created to implement morality.

Mr. Williams informed us that he is a great person. He then informed us that atheists can be morally motivated without believing in a higher power. Also, religion is not necessarily ethical, although many religious people in history have been moral.

A guest, spoke of how people and even animals exhibit moral behavior without religion. People help people and animals help other animals because it will benefit them in the long run.

I said that there was no such thing as a Judeo-Christian belief and even that our legal system found its basis in far older systems, such as the code of Hammurabi.

Ms. McFarland promised us she would get naked, run through the hall, and start killing people. She never did. She then reminded us that religion has been twisted to justify horrible things.

A guest, told us that non-human creatures, such as bees, Rhesus monkeys, and even Russians, stand up for what is moral and right, even without religion.

Ms. Brown gave a cost-benefit analysis of good and bad deeds in Christianity, such as how giving $5 to a homeless guy can get you in to heaven.

Ms. Crawford supported the resolution, although she didn’t agree with it.

Mr. Ballard said that the state could uphold moral principles without religion, citing the Peachtree City Gestapo Police Force. Religion is a good deterrent when the “man” can’t stop you. “Space Monkey,” Mr. Wesley wrote.

Mr. Misztal told us that religion puts different value judgments on different situations and thus does not work as a moral system. Most moral people are those who think for themselves.

Mr. Miller, in his fancy green robe, supported the resolution. Unfortunately, the notes on his speech end there since Mr. Wesley was distracted by Mr. Lerner rubbing his leg in “gleeful anticipation of the Intersociety Debate.”

Mr. Smith, the society’s resident atheist, said that religion was based on paradoxes. If religion can be used to justify anything, any moral system is incoherent. “God and morality don’t mix.”

Mr. Theiss was a cry-baby as a child. What drives humans to act morally is something higher than just herd instinct.

Mr. Skiles argued that religion was necessary for ethical theory and practice. Moral judgments are truth statements.

Ms. Keyes-Blumer opposed the resolution because of its latter part. She was an ethical person before she found religion, but she now used religions to back up her morals. Atheists can be moral, but religion helps to bolster morality.

Mr. Misztal cited the honorable grandpa Carl Pyrdum, saying that religion is a poor excuse for morality.

The question was called and failed 8 to 10 among members and 1 to 4 among guests.

Ms. Prabhakar then presented “BIR: The world would be a better place if everyone spoke English as their primary language.”

I argued that language is not at the root of much conflicts and that the cause of war was more likely to be human nature.

Mr. Owens pointed out that the rest of the world supported multi-lingual education, but that the US does not; European nations are surrounded by other countries speaking other languages and have to be multi-lingual to survive.

Ms. Price, a guest, said that having a common language would not prevent conflict because it would force a homogenization of culture and people value their own cultures.

A guest, told us that companies go abroad because it’s cheaper, not because of language problems.

Mr. Addison claimed that the powerful overtake the weak. Americans have power and money, the rest of the world want them. English would be more efficient because translation is difficult.

Ms. Keyes-Blumer said that just because the US is dominant in the world doesn’t make it right. Learning another language makes you work and beliefs are questioned after the language is examined.

Ms. Crawford claimed that communication reduces conflict, but that communication can be distorted even within one language.

Mr. Misztal opposed the resolution, arguing that Poland survived as a nation because of language. He then asked, should we all become robots with no variation in thought only for the sake of efficiency?

Mr. Theiss reminded us that to convey meaning we need to understand what other people are saying. If everyone spoke English we could improve the marketplace of ideas.

Mr. Elliott told us that the spirit of the resolution was not that people only had to speak English, it just means they should all speak it in addition to other languages.

Mr. Moulds claimed that economy dictates what should be our language. Europe has to be multi-linguagal, American doesn’t.

Mr. Miller argued that by having multiple primary languages, culture would be strengthened and expanded. He then claimed that, “the English dictionary is the largest because we steal from other dictionaries.”

Mr. Hansen opposed the resolution because Latin dominated and eliminated other languages and the collapse of Rome led to the Dark Ages. The intrinsic value of language is important.

The question was called and failed 7 to 10. Mr. Wesley then added “take that US empire.”

Next came “BIR: Superman runs counter to current American Ideals, Patriotically submitted, Maciej Misztal.”

Mr. Owens revealed that Superman is a terrorist, sent from his home planet of Krypton to conquer Earth. He then claimed that Superman was now “anally raping our culture.”

I opposed the resolution since Superman personifies current American ideals because he is hot.

Mr. Elliott argued that Superman was the American ideal because he dresses well, is a nice guy, and is from small town America. At this point, Superman started to sound suspiciously like a metro-sexual.

Mr. Theiss claimed that Superman is a fascist because he uses his super-hearing to listen to us to find weakness. Also he is gay and a racist. Superman also uses the media to influence us.

Mr. Wesley pointed out that since Superman is marketable, he fits nicely into our consumer capitalism.

Mr. Keenan, acting secretary at the time, has then noted that he likes naughty women.

Ms. Price, a guest, said that there is no such thing as an American ideal and so how can Superman be counter to it?

Mr. Moulds was then ejected for claiming – most falsely, might I add – that Democrats are un-American.

Mr. Miller told us that Superman fought the Nazis in World War II. So did Bugs Bunny. They both fought for truth, justice, and the American way.

Sir Keenan, as he is noted in the minutes, loves money, as was demonstrated when Mr. Misztal offered him $1 just to give this speech. If he had super-powers, he would exploit them for money. Also, he hates poor people and thus hates Superman’s upbringing.

Mr. Ballard insulted Mr. Trivedi. He then claimed to exemplify the traits of Superman – muscles, can do no wrong, and so on. His new haircut, however, makes him look more like Howard Dean than Superman.

I was then fined for insulting Mr. Lerner, or, as Mr. Wesley, the acting secretary, referred to him, “the short bastard to my left.”

The question was called and passed, 8 to 7, with Ms. Keyes-Blumer abstaining, and failed 0 to 2 among the guests.

Mr. Trivedi then rose to read our story. Our WINNING story.

Next, Mr. Keenan presented “BIR: There is nothing wrong with having a bank account with no commitment.”

Mr. Wesley has a lot of real world experience with banks and loves discussing finance. A credit union lets you put a little in, but everyone in the community shares the benefits.

Ms. Crawford pointed out that banks provided a service to the community because “you can’t just go throw your money in a mattress.”

Mr. Owens told us that he had built up a good relationship with his bank. I’d like to point out that he was stroking the wood of the podium the whole time.

Mr. Lerner spent a lot of time with a theater group in high school and the acting community loves to bank. In college he learned that you want a bank that is FDIC insured.

Mr. Owens then fell out of his chair, busting his butt.

Mr. Miller inherited $13,000. However, the bank charged high interest on his loans; college is expensive and he warned us all to be careful when banking in college.

Mr. Moulds then fell down somewhere in the hall.

Mr. Misztal said he had some finance experience in high school. Banks that make accounts without commitments could give you dirty money.

Mr. Theiss argued that the resolution was biased against people who cannot make a commitment. For example, he has no liquid assets and banks reject him. He should be able to deposit his money any way he wants.

Mr. Ballard once came close to working with a Swiss bank. He will find the right bank one day and flood it with assets. For now, he uses online banking.

The question was called and failed 4 to 8 among members and 0 to 2 among guests.

We then adjourned to Little Italy after Ms. Keyes-Blumer’s lovely critic’s report.

Respectfully Submitted,
Jennifer Skrmetti