quote:Originally posted by jeniwren: KarlEd, is that possible? An objective morality? Who decides?
Yes, it is possible. Theft is objectively wrong. Murder is objectively wrong. Lying is objectively wrong. A society which does not enforce a prohibition against these three things at least will not be able to exist as a society. I believe there is room in these three things for some differences in definition or degree of breach of these principles, but I think we can decide upon those, too.
The above belief is the only reason I think talking about the subject at hand (ad nauseum for some, I realize) is worthwhile.
edit to add that those big three above are by no means meant to be the only moral truths I believe are objective. There are probably many many more. I don't pretend to know them all.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>it looks like you are saying "It is right that I impose my religion on others, but it is not right that others impose their religion on me."<<
:shrug:
I believe that my religion is objectively true.
Frighteningly, I understand that point of view. I just don't believe that it is possible to objectively arrive at that conclusion. That's why I believe God as most people envision him does not exist. That or he is the ultimate sadist.
It's kind of funny. I don't just understand Scott's view about that; I share it about my own religion. I know that we have God's Truth. God told us so.
There used to be such a thing as trial by combat. The basic idea was that neither side was ever going to admit to being wrong. So they'd fight, and whoever won was clearly in the right.
Nowadays, we generally look down upon such a procedure, because we know full well that wrong and evil can and does often win out, at least in the short term, over right and good.
But short of trial by combat, or the variation known sometimes as a jihad or a crusade, how can we resolve a dispute between people who know themselves to be right?
Voting is just as bad as trial by combat, because it can't determine truth any more than a swordfight can. And the First Amendment doesn't exist to stifle religion, but rather to prevent a trial by combat in the ballot box.
I don't have any problem looking at issues from a dual perspective. I will fight within Judaism against any attempt to have same-sex marriage. I will fight in the secular realm of this country to have same-sex marriage either recognized or not, but exactly as opposite-sex marriage is recognized or not.
I'll fight within Judaism to stop Jews from opening stores on Shabbat. And I'll fight just as hard against Blue Laws that use the force of secular law to try and shut down businesses for religionus reasons.
That's not hypocrisy, Scott. It's recognizing that supporting religious freedom in this country does not run counter to the absolute conviction that ones own religion is not only true, but is the only true religion.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But short of trial by combat, or the variation known sometimes as a jihad or a crusade, how can we resolve a dispute between people who know themselves to be right?
No one has ever taken me up on the offer to armwrestle for it.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
I bet if the members of all religions acted that way the individual benefits and deficiencies of each would become more readily apparent.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
starLisa, I think there's some Biblical backing to what you're saying, though in the New Testament, not the Old (that I know of, though it could be there). I'm not sure where it is, but I remembering reading a distinction between holding fellow believers accountable for their actions (which I recall we were supposed to do) and holding unbelievers to the same standards (which we're not supposed to do). Maybe someone remembers where that is...it's one of Paul's letters, I think (the odds are for it, anyway, even if my memory is faulty).
I think I'm coming to the conclusion that if it comes to a vote, I won't vote on that issue. I can't be for it, but I don't know that I can be against it either. For me, it's coming down to what is the most loving thing can I do? I guess I'm just getting to the point that as Christians we've made our point. The Bible says it's wrong. No one is going to mistake us for endorsing it. So I guess I'm ready to just stand aside and go with Lisa on it.
******
KarlEd,
quote:Yes, it is possible. Theft is objectively wrong. Murder is objectively wrong. Lying is objectively wrong. A society which does not enforce a prohibition against these three things at least will not be able to exist as a society.
Why are these three things "wrong"? Don't we have to define what makes something "objectively wrong" to be able to determine what fits in that category? I agree they are wrong, absolutely, but think my basis is ultimately subjective. We can define "objectively wrong" to mean "anything that harms another person", but then where do we draw the line at 'harms'? It goes back to Asimov's three laws and his fictional logical conclusion. Or do you have a different definition for 'objective'?
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The second part of what you quoted from me is one possible criteria. I think there might be more. I will think about this more and probably start a new thread about it tomorrow.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, it is possible. Theft is objectively wrong. Murder is objectively wrong. Lying is objectively wrong. A society which does not enforce a prohibition against these three things at least will not be able to exist as a society.
Why are these three things "wrong"? Don't we have to define what makes something "objectively wrong" to be able to determine what fits in that category? I agree they are wrong, absolutely, but think my basis is ultimately subjective. We can define "objectively wrong" to mean "anything that harms another person", but then where do we draw the line at 'harms'? It goes back to Asimov's three laws and his fictional logical conclusion. Or do you have a different definition for 'objective'?
Well, theoretically, let's say that there are certain things that are real axioms. Things that must be true, regardless of anyone's opinion.
And suppose there are arguments that derive from those axioms without opinion entering into it. Would those qualify as objectively true?
We (Jews) actually learn from the Bible itself that white lies to spare someone's feeling are okay. After all, God tells a white lie Himself in Genesis.
Sarah laughs and says, "I'm going to get pregnant when my husband is so old?" And God asks Abraham, "Why is Sarah laughing and saying, 'I'm going to get pregnant when I'm so old?'?" We learn that God didn't want to repeat what Sarah said accurately, because it would have hurt Abraham's feelings and/or caused strife between the two.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question on the divorce issue because I honestly don't know, and I'm curious.
If you're LDS, and you get married to someone who is also LDS, but then you have to get a divorce (let's say it's because of abuse or adultery), then what happens to the marriage within the church? I mean, Temple marriages are supposed to last for eternity, right? So what happens then?
posted
You apply for a breaking of the temple sealing. It takes a while, and I think it goes through the first presidency of the church.
However, once the civil divorce has gone through, the parties can remarry civilly, even if they are still sealed. A woman can't be sealed to anyone else until her previous sealing has been canceled.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I guess I'm just getting to the point that as Christians we've made our point. The Bible says it's wrong. No one is going to mistake us for endorsing it.
Not all Christians. I know lots of Christians, myself included, that believe it is more in keeping with Gods will to recognize same sex marriage. Please bear in mind that there are Christian opinions all over this issue.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: There are other intepretations for that passage that do not have God telling a lie.
Perhaps. But then, there are interpretations of Isaiah that suggest a virgin giving birth. I was talking about what we (Jews) learn from that verse, and said as much. We can't prevent other people from messing it up. <grin>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not all Christians. I know lots of Christians, myself included, that believe it is more in keeping with Gods will to recognize same sex marriage. Please bear in mind that there are Christian opinions all over this issue.
kmboots, forgive me, I really didn't mean *all* Christians. I know that's how it sounds, but it really wasn't what I meant. What I meant were all Christians who speak out against same sex marriage on the basis that the Bible says homosexual sex is wrong. Obviously my comment doesn't apply to anyone else, since they may object on different grounds, or they don't object at all. Forgive the broad brush and thank you for pointing out how sweepingly I used it. It was unintentional.
Posts: 5948 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Jeniwren. Of course, forgiven. I mentioned it only because "Christian" is coming to be understood (esp. among non-christians) as representing only a very specific part of the Christian community. The rest of us need to speak up more!
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dkw: Two nit picks on your post Scott:
1) the UMC does not allow "self avowed practicing homosexuals" to be ordained. The UCC, however, does. Some American Baptist churches do too, they get away with it on the "congregational autonomy" principle.
This is an interesting rule and one that, frankly, as the Granddaughter and Niece of two United Methodist Ministers, I was surprised was not overturned at General Conference last year. I was also surprised that the rule against marrying homosexuals within the church was not overturned at that time. Frankly, I don't expect either to hold up in four years when the next General Conference is held, the UMC is too supportive of its homosexual members.
As for the above, while it is true that a homosexual can not be "out" and be ordained within the church, they can be closeted and be ordained. Also, there was a case recently where the Reverend Karen Danneman was acquited in a church trial and allowed to keep her clergy credentials despite being a self-avowed and practicing homosexual. Intereseted parties can read about it here.
While the UMC is currently still taking a stance against homosexual marriage etc within the Book of Discipline, the church is, and has been a proponent of civil rights for homosexuals for some time. The official UMC stance on civil rights for homosexuals can be found here.Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was disapointed that the rule was not overturned at General Conference, but not surprised. I would be very surprised if it were overturned in 2008. I do think it will happen (or the denomination will split) but not at next Gen. Conference.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that it will either be overturned or the denomination will split. Actually I think it will be overturned and the denomination will split.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
andi330 -- what makes you think the denomination will split?
I think just the opposite. I think they'll take so long to decide this that it'll finally be sort of a crisis of looking absolutely hypocritical if they DON'T do it, and everyone will pretty much agree.
The "open hearts, open minds, open doors" thing is difficult to put qualifiers on, actually. And right now, the UMC is having to do that.
What little I have learned so far about the UMC is that they are very inclusive in their decision making and there's room for open discussion and debate. The belief that people of good will can differ on these points and still remain in the same denomination pretty much permeates the denomination.
There are things that might split the UMC, but I personally don't see this issue doing it.
anyway, that's my take on it.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the denomination will split if the change happens any time soon, say within the next 1 to 2 General Conferences. As it stands, the denomination is too split on the issue.
quote: "If there's any action taken, it will likely be an action that is more restrictive or punitive toward gay and lesbian people than is currently in the (Book of) Discipline," said the Rev. David F. McAllister-Wilson, president of United Methodist-related Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington.
David (he's a friend of the family) called it well. The church didn't tighten restrictions, but they didn't do anything about the current restrictions anyway. In 2000 the vote was 2 to 1 against, I don't know what it was in 2004 can't find the numbers.
The denomination is actually heading for a fork in the road and will soon have to decide to band together or to divide permanently. I don't think the church's policies on homosexuality is the divisive issue but it may be the final straw. Remember, it was less than 200 years ago that the Methodist Church split over slavery, and it's been less than 100 years since we managed to rejoin.
Posts: 1214 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:does your religion require you to try and enforce your religion on the citizens of a nation in which people are not supposed to be subject to the whims of this religion or that?
Enforce, no. Proselyte, yes.
quote:is it possible in your religion to say that you hold something to be objectively wrong, but recognize that living in a country that has as one of its primary principles the idea that no one should be subject to the dictates of the religious views of others means refraining from attempts to force your religious views on others?
Yes-- there's been no great push in Mormonism to outlaw alcohol since Prohibition ended. Ditto with tabacco consumption. BUT-- we also are taught to vote our conscience, and to enact change that will be compatible with our understanding of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, the Church got involved with a couple propositions in California a couple years ago regarding homosexual marriage. (Prop 43? I don't remember. . . I remember Irami got torked about it, but that's about it. . .)
Mr. Squicky is wrong about my hypocrisy-- not that I'm NOT hypocritical, but he misunderstands what I'm hypocritical about. My hypocrisy? I support, for religious reasons, a ban on homosexual marriages, but completely reject, on secular grounds, the notion of prayer in schools.
posted
Would you, for example, vote for prohibitions against sabbath breaking or failing to honor one's parents? Or laws requiring giving away any extra coats you might have? These things are all more prominently mentioned in the scripture than homosexuality.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
>>Would you, for example, vote for prohibitions against sabbath breaking
I'm all for reinstituting the Blue laws that give all non-emergency workers a guarenteed day off once a week.
>>or failing to honor one's parents?
I'm completely in favor of strengthening parents' rights, both through social programs (parent education) and through legislation that makes it easier (or, heck, POSSIBLE) for fathers to gain sole custody of their children.
>> Or laws requiring giving away any extra coats you might have?
I believe, strongly, that the welfare programs in this country need serious funding. I believe that our society is under condemnation because we do not give sufficient aid to the poor and destitute and we ignore the needy.
>>Scott, why do you reject prayer in schools then?
I never claimed to make sense as a human being.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
SO was that a yes or a no? Is that "day off" mandated for keeping the Sabbath or could it be used for yard work or football?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay...but then you haven't really responded to the question in a way that helps me to understand your reasoning.
I'll try to be more clear with the qestion in case that helps. (also, anyone else can jump in, too. This isn't meant to be a "pile on Scott" question).
You have said (i think) that you would vote against same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage is contrary to your religion. Are there other things that you would vote to prohibit because they are contrary to your religion?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, The idea that you don't have to follow the rules that you want everyone else to follow is pretty much the definition of hypocrisy. Being really sincere about thinking that you shouldn't have to follow them doesn't change that from my perspective.
From an outside perspective, there is no difference between you wanting to treat gays as second class citizens because of your religious prejudices and the Baptists wanting to treat you as a Mormon as a second class citizen because of their religious prejudices. If we accept the principle that it's okay to use the government to force your religion on others or to treat unequally because they don't follow some set of religious beliefs, without the caveat that you can't do it to ScottR, there would be nothing to stop the Baptists and oter evangelical Christian groups in their ongoing attempts to revoke the rights of you and yours.
And it's not that they're right or that it would be the best thing for society. It's just that they are stronger, just like you're only able to treat gays unequally because your side brings more might to the table than theirs does.
It is exactly to avoid the "might makes right" classification of people that our country, as a novel experiment, introduced the ideas of unbroachable equal individual rights (among them Freedom of Religion) and equality for all people before the law. These are the same things that you cherish when they protect you against the ecangelical Christian majority. But you seem perfectly willing to throw these principles away when they stand in the way of what you want. I hope you and your oft-despised minority religion never have to live with the world that would result if that attitude becomes acceptad as legitimate on a wider scale.
No one is stopping you from opposing gay marriage. No one is saying that you yourself nor your church have to support gay marriage. No one is saying that you can't express you opinions and try to convince or teach others why you feel that gay marriage is wrong.
What we are saying is that it's not legitimate to codify an inequality for some people based on your religious prejudices. It's not your place as a responsible memeber of this country who wants to enjoy the protection of these principles to do that.
There are plenty of levels of opposition here. As I've pointed out, many of the them are perfectly legitimate and acceptible. But I'm not sure why you are compelled to go this far and no further. Why aren't you compelled to say that gay people shouldn't have their vote counted equally or that people shouldn't have free speech when promoting gay issues? Why do you feel compelled to support inequality and violation of their rights in this case but not others? For that matter, if you can't live within your religion and not advocate inequality for American citizens based on that religion, why aren't you pushing for second class status for people who don't belong to your religion?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: If we accept the principle that it's okay to use the government to force your religion on others or to treat unequally because they don't follow some set of religious beliefs, without the caveat that you can't do it to ScottR, there would be nothing to stop the Baptists and oter evangelical Christian groups in their ongoing attempts to revoke the rights of you and yours.
I would oppose anyone trying to establish a principle that it's okay for the government to force your religion on others. But I think you are misinterpretting the religous arguments being made to oppose same-sex marriage. Conflating this with first amendment issues is a red herring. IMO the crux of the argument is over whether all people have the implicit right to a state-sanctioned marriage with the partner of their choice. This right is not apparent in the federal constitution or in any state constitution except Massachusetts (according to the SJC). Therefore, if such a right exists, it is an implied right, analogous to the right to privacy.
The problem with that is, since there's no codification, we have to argue over whether that right exists or not. You claim it does, I claim it doesn't. You present evidence for why you think it does, which devolves to "because I say so" and I present evidence for why I don't think so, which similarly devolves to "because I say so." My view may be based on religion, versus some non-religous morality, but in the end we both are arguing from a particular dogma for the imposition of our view of rights onto someone else.
The mess that ensues when determining what are rights and what aren't is amply demonstrated over on the objective morality thread.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
A major difference, in more neutral terms, between Squick's and yours, however, is that with his resolution, your rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (I know, these exist in a non-binding document) are NOT abridged in anyway, whereas in keeping the status quo, others rights are abridged (particularly pursuit of happiness), and there is no concrete evidence, IMO, that their pursuit of happiness ought to be abridged.
quote:You have said (i think) that you would vote against same-sex marriage because same-sex marriage is contrary to your religion.
Let me clarify-- I would vote against same sex marriage because, in the long run, I think that the weight of institutionalizing it will be bad, spiritually, for the nations in which this happens.
(I think that same sex marriage will obtain civil recognition soon; I don't plan to throw a fit when it happens. I don't plan on changing my life much at all. Nothing new under the sun, and all that...)
I don't carry it any farther, Squicky, because I don't. :shrug:
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
*** I never claimed to make sense as a human being. ***
There are a lot of people on this board who have very different opinions to me and others who are more similar but many of us are very internally consistent. Which is why we like trying to understand the fundamental premise / rationality beind each other's philosophies.
Scott, if on the other hand you are not internally consistent, then pehapse say 'I feel that gay marriage is wrong' rathern than 'I think that gay marriage is wrong' as it may save some misunderstanding.
You are of course entitled to your feelings.
Personally, I think civil gay marriages are fine. Squicky and Bok covered why.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
**** That's not hypocrisy, Scott. It's recognizing that supporting religious freedom in this country does not run counter to the absolute conviction that ones own religion is not only true, but is the only true religion. ***
I wish more people thougth like you. Well said.
Posts: 571 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Senoj, I don't think that asserting that marriage is a right is a particularly strong argument, which is why I didn't rely on it. What is a right is that people be treated equally before the law.
The marriage that we're arguing over is a legal relationship that people object to extending to same sex couples because it is against their religion. From what I can see, many people, such as Scott, freely admit that this is the case and there seems to be an unwillingness or inability for others to tender and tenable reasons other than this for treeating gay people unequally before the law.
---
quote:Let me clarify-- I would vote against same sex marriage because, in the long run, I think that the weight of institutionalizing it will be bad, spiritually, for the nations in which this happens.
Are there going to be any objectively observable effects to this spiritual degredation or is it all on the non-observable plain? Because I'd be interested in knowing what the material effects you think are going to occur, if any. Also, from what I can tell, the Baptists view allowing LDS to prostyletize the same way, as a threat to the spiritual rightness of the country. I still don't see how you're explaining how your stance is anything but hypocritical.
edit: Also, even if allowing gay marriage were a threat to the spiritual integrity of the nation, I'd argue that the embracing and support of hatred, bigotry, and dishonesty that runs through the core of the anti-gay movement would be a more serious threat.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: >>Would you, for example, vote for prohibitions against sabbath breaking
I'm all for reinstituting the Blue laws that give all non-emergency workers a guarenteed day off once a week.
The Blue Laws didn't do that, though. They guaranteed a specific day off. Suppose that had been Wednesday, and Christians who feel they shouldn't work on Sunday were forced to work on Sunday, with the excuse given that, "Well, you have Wednesday off. What's your beef?" Because that's exactly what happened to Jews under the Blue Laws.
So you're okay with that?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'd argue that the embracing and support of hatred, bigotry, and dishonesty that runs through the core of the anti-gay movement would be a more serious threat.
:shrug:
You're allowed this point of view. I don't support hatred, bigotry, or dishonesty. Neither am I particularly concerned if you (that's both general and individually directed) feel that I am.
quote:The Blue Laws didn't do that, though. They guaranteed a specific day off. Suppose that had been Wednesday, and Christians who feel they shouldn't work on Sunday were forced to work on Sunday, with the excuse given that, "Well, you have Wednesday off. What's your beef?" Because that's exactly what happened to Jews under the Blue Laws.
So you're okay with that?
I have no objection to allowing individuals to designate one regular day off per week for their own religious observances, or for whatever they want it for.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have watched this thread play out over the past days, and I have to say that I am impressed with alot of the arguements have presented on both sides. To be honest I am in the same Mormon boat as Scott and I have often thought how ought I to vote when my religious convictions believe contrary to the majority of the country.
You have asked Scott to identify what exactly would happen were the nation to allow same sex marriage. This is a less effective question as it would be at best truth that we cannot prove, at worse pure speculation.
If we must have an indication then look at the european countries, especially Scandanavia, seeing as how they have had same sex marriage available for a long time now.
I wont try to say how things are running in Europe as I am not an expert. I can't even be called a student.
Somebody made the point that Baptists think Mormon Proselyting is damaging to the moral fabric of society. 1: I have never heard that argued, 2: They are welcome to try to pass bills that accomplish their aims, we wont begrudge them that, merely vote against such measures.
I must admit it is fairly insulting that people make the arguement that our first loyalty is to fellow citizens and THEN to our God. It has been argued "but you cannot prove your perception of God is correct, therefore you cannot be 100% sure your perspective on homosexual marriage is right."
Then try this perspective.
I believe that it is the devine design of God that men and women marry and raise children, teaching them to believe in God and to keep his commandments. God designed it that way according to my beliefs. Were I to vote for a measure allowing for gay marriage I could have other men clapping me on the back and praising me for my open mindedness. But according to what I believe I would be sanctioning a lifestyle that is not consistant with God's plan as I see it. I would be supporting rebelion, I would be encouraging deviation from God's plan. I spent 2 years of my life doing nothing but trying to share the beauty and virtue that God has shared with me. How can I then be expected to vote for a law that is in opposition to those things I shared? You might as well have me admit to believing a lie for my entire life and that I have blinded the minds of my fellow man with promises of eternal marriages, and salvation forever. Well if you are right, fine I better start repairing the damage I have already done. If I am right you are asking me to damn myself.
You have asked us to prove that we are right. We say the entire earth validates our beliefs, can you prove your beliefs are correct any better than we can?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If we must have an indication then look at the european countries, especially Scandanavia, seeing as how they have had same sex marriage available for a long time now.
I wont try to say how things are running in Europe as I am not an expert. I can't even be called a student.
Hmm...last I checked, Scandinavia was still on the map. I wonder how much more in depth scholarship is required. It seems a little odd to posit such a reasonable way to address this and then simply throw up your hands and say "well, I don't have the answer."
If you don't believe the challenge is a fair one, say so.
Edited to delete other stuff. I honestly can't stay civil at the moment and will defer my comments until such time as I can be more even handed.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I must admit it is fairly insulting that people make the arguement that our first loyalty is to fellow citizens and THEN to our God.
You're going to have to cope with the idea that the rest of us might be uncomfortable hanging out with someone who's open about the fact that his first loyalty is to his invisible God, and only then to, say, his family, and only then to his fellow citizens. See, I can't see your God, and it bothers me to think that your God could tell you to kill me in my sleep and you'd say okay -- because, hey, I'm not your first priority.
I'm much, much more comfortable with people who tell me that their first priority is their own sense of morality. Because then at least there's some theoretical check on what their hypothetical "god" could tell them to do. Individual people are, in general, never as evil as people who think they're acting under orders.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
BlackBlade, I can only refer you to what I posted above. I know that my religion (Orthodox Judaism) is not only true, but that it's the only true religion. And I'm not saying that tongue in cheek. That means that I know your religion is wrong.
And yet I would fight to prevent the passage of any law that would restrict you on the basis of my religious convictions, which are, after all, what God wants from us.
That's not hypocrisy. It's a recognition that in a country with multiple religious beliefs, you either keep those beliefs out of the legal system, or you basically engage in jihad until someone wins. Or until everyone loses. And that's bad for everyone.
I know that the Torah is true, and I know that eventually, everyone on Earth will know that to be the case. Right now, it's the holiday of Sukkot. In times to come, every nation on Earth will send representatives to the Temple in Jerusalem on Sukkot to offer sacrifices to the One True God. And if they don't, they're going to find out what drought really means. Yeah, you too, BlackBlade. But for now, you really want to put down the sword and stop playing jihad games with the one country in the world where people aren't supposed to have to worry about someone else's religion being imposed on them.
And for the record, while I've heard various different takes on polygamy from various different Mormons, my take is that it's none of the government's business, and that if your religion sees it as a good thing, you should have the right to do it.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're going to have to cope with the idea that the rest of us might be uncomfortable hanging out with someone who's open about the fact that his first loyalty is to his invisible God, and only then to, say, his family, and only then to his fellow citizens. See, I can't see your God, and it bothers me to think that your God could tell you to kill me in my sleep and you'd say okay -- because, hey, I'm not your first priority.
You say this as if you think the religious should just have to put up with being looked down upon because of the priorities that viewpoint places upon them.
Are YOU also going to just have to cope with the idea that many people in this country are uncomfortable hanging around with people who don't believe in God? After all, if you are just guided by your own sense of morality, doesn't that mean you might decide to kill any of us whenever your sense decides it would be right? That's what many people probably do think, and if we are telling everyone to just "deal with" whatever bad feelings others direct at them because of their religion, I'd be willing to bet atheists are not going to come out too well.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: You say this as if you think the religious should just have to put up with being looked down upon because of the priorities that viewpoint places upon them.
Logically, they should. This is a responsibility that they, as keepers of an awkwardly unprovable yet universal truth, must somehow bear, as they choose to place responsibility to their fellow human beings on a level below that of responsibilities to a hypothetical and possibly imaginary creature. Only if that creature is not imaginary is this a functional viewpoint. Frankly, I muster little sympathy -- because if they're right, most of those same religions posit that they will reap rewards for their rightness far in excess of their actual suffering here on Earth. If they're wrong, see point A.
Religious people who admit that their own morality functions as a filter on the presumed commandments of God do not frighten me in this way, of course. I should make clear that anyone who, upon hearing the voice of God order them to kill me, says "No, I will not," is not included in this censure. (And lest you think this is hubristic of me, consider this: if God has ordered someone to kill me, God has apparently decided that He is my enemy. Why on Earth would I not be nervous around the chosen tools of my omnipotent enemy? And if God didn't actually order this, it's in everyone's best interest if the person disobeys. Either way, I -- as the person being killed -- have no reason to be glad of my killer's obedience.)
Edit: I want to clarify this even further, BTW. God is varelse. He is by definition (according to most Judeo-Christian religions, at least) so far above humanity that He can neither be comprehended nor communicated with. He is in fact less human than the most insane and erratic of people. Presumably, of course, He is better. And yet we know that He has sent droughts to kill complete innocents to punish kings for indiscretions; He has, if you accept Revelations, further stated His intention to kill most of the population of the planet. And we must believe that these things are for the best, lacking any observable evidence of a plan for a greater good -- and believing, in fact, that we would not be able to understand the scope of such a plan even if we were to be shown it. We must associate with people who look forward to this event, and presumably not let on that their hopeful anticipation of our death is mildly disturbing to us.
Now, I don't lie in bed trembling in fear of God's wrath. I think it's highly unlikely that the God of the Bible exists. But I know that people who do believe do exist, and moreover see ample evidence in the ancient and modern world to suggest that believers in any cause are often able to ignore their duties and obligations to humanity in favor of that cause. I regard this as one of the greatest threats to the continued existence of human society.
quote:Are YOU also going to just have to cope with the idea that many people in this country are uncomfortable hanging around with people who don't believe in God? After all, if you are just guided by your own sense of morality, doesn't that mean you might decide to kill any of us whenever your sense decides it would be right?
Yep. First difference being, of course, I can tell you at any given time why I hold the moral opinions I do, what my code of ethics includes, etc. How many religious people could, if and when they come to kill me at their god's command, let me talk to their god before the fatal stroke is dealt to see if we might come to some arrangement?
And the second difference is this: from a psychological perspective, it is a known fact that people more easily justify abomination when they believe they are acting on behalf of a higher authority. It's much harder to justify, say, putting someone into an iron maiden on your own initiative than to do it because God -- or, to take God briefly out of the equation, your boss -- told you to do it. In this scenario, an unknowable God becomes a boss who can never, under any circumstances, be held morally accountable or be directly questioned or negotiated with.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: [QUOTE] And the second difference is this: from a psychological perspective, it is a known fact that people more easily justify abomination when they believe they are acting on behalf of a higher authority. It's much harder to justify, say, putting someone into an iron maiden on your own initiative than to do it because God -- or, to take God briefly out of the equation, your boss -- told you to do it.
I didn't know that was a known fact. Would you mind posting some references, please?
Personal experience is that those who committed the most heinous acts were atheist. But that's just personal experience.
quote: I didn't know that was a known fact. Would you mind posting some references, please?
There's actually a pretty wide body of work on it. Milgram springs to mind first, of course. And while the people who may have ordered the most heinous acts in recent decades may have been officially atheist -- and I'm not necessarily conceding this, either, actually -- the people who actually performed those acts were generally not (and were, per my previous argument, acting on unquestioned commands from authority.) From my perspective, someone can order as many deaths as they want without bothering me a lick as long as the people they're ordering have the strength of mind to say "no, I will not."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom-- Do you also admit the benefits given to society by those acting in the name of God? Charity, art, music, etc?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, absolutely. Motivation is motivation, and certainly in the formative years of human development we needed a reason to obey a central authority; I don't think agriculture and the development of the city-state could have happened without that sort of justification.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Tom-- Do you also admit the benefits given to society by those acting in the name of God? Charity, art, music, etc?
Just to clarify for myself, you are submitting that followers of God also do acts of Charity, art, music, etc. You are not stating that "Charity, art, music, etc" are benefits we wouldn't have without followers of God. If my clarification is correct, I accept this, too.
quote:Tres: You say this as if you think the religious should just have to put up with being looked down upon because of the priorities that viewpoint places upon them.
Who doesn't have to put up with being looked down upon for whatever reason? Who is immune to the negative opinions of others? Lord knows I suffer being looked down upon for who I am, even by some members of this board. Why should the religious be immune to this where it applies?
Blackblade, I was going to argue about you claim regarding "Scandinavia" since I thought the hubub about Canada and Spain recently included remarks about how they were the first to legalize gay unions. However, luckily I checked my facts and you are right (to a degree). The HRC website lists several countries with varying degrees of legalized gay unions. I had no idea how far behind the curve we really are as a nation. That said, I'd love to see you, or anyone else, really, take that list and point out the spiritual malaise each country has undergone due to its degree of recognition of homosexual unions. In fact, that's a challenge. You can even start your own thread.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Somebody made the point that Baptists think Mormon Proselyting is damaging to the moral fabric of society. 1: I have never heard that argued, 2: They are welcome to try to pass bills that accomplish their aims, we wont begrudge them that, merely vote against such measures.
Do you honestly think that if this were the case you'd have a chance in winning? And do you not know your LDS history? Or even American and European history for that matter?
I think that this is one of the problesm with the "Democracy = Freedom" idea that our country pushes. Democracy, on its own, merely replaces tyranny by the strong with tyranny by the majority. That's why there was and is a great conern with securing individual rights and with developing and adhering to a workable public square epistemology. To actually secure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" for the individual and for a nation, you need to set aside rights for each person that can't be taken away by the majority and a set of guidelines for what arguments are legitimate for employing government force against the will of some of its citizens. The majority of people in a country can vote for the death of one person or a group of people (like in the Missouri Mormon Extermination Order), but, if the system is working, it would avail them nothing. They, even as a majority or a supermajority, do not have that right.
I wrote something a little while back about our country's roots in the Enlightenment. It might be useful for me to repost it here:
quote:(Just a note, I'm going to treat the Age of Reason as part of the Enlgihtenment. Of course, if you know the difference between the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment, you already the stuff I'm going to talk about.)
The Enlightenment (wiki) was a movement towards reason and tolerance and away from the magical thinking, submission to authority, and inflexible parochialism that had kept Christian Europe a place of ignorance, savagery, and internicine warfare.
The first revolution was one of the system of thought. During this period, thinkers developed a way of thinking and of proof that has led our modern ideas of science and systematic scholarship.
They looked at what we actually could say we know. This was done early on by Montainge and Descartes (he of the "I think therefore I am.") and later by Hume and Kant.
One of the central characteristics of this new system of thought was its reliance on the idea of immutable, underlying laws. No longer was "Just because." or (more importantly) "Because God (or some other person in authority) said so." considered an adequate answer. The Deist (and in many cases the Christian) god was seen as a watchmaker, who set the immensely complicated but understandable universe machine in motion and was now watching it play out according to the laws that the god set in place.
This orderly conception of the universe spread into other matters, such as politics. Rulers were now expected to be able to provide valid reasons for their decisions and action instead of rely solely on their authority as they had in the past. There was increasing emphasis on the rule of law instead of the rule of the privledged (meaning "private law") person. This eventually developed into the idea of "natural rights" (or, as Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence "inalienable rights").
The Protestant Reformation had already raised the individual to the position of central concern, but it did so without humanism and tended to regard the individual as bascially evil who's basic duty was submission. The Enlightenment re-emphasized this pre-eminent focus on the individual but included the ideas of humanism, turning the picture of human history as one of a progression towards achieving the benefits of human freedom, instead of the static worlds of the communal relations then emphasized by the Catholic Church or of degraded, isolated individuals a la Luther and Calvin (and in my opinion, Ecclesiastes).
So the Enlightenment carried with it a call to revolution against those powers that opposed human freedom, namely the Church and the State, with the idea of setting up a new form of government. The ideas from the Declaration of Independence:
quote: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
and the Constitution:
quote:to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity
were not the often-ignored platitudes that they have become. They were a declaration of a new age, a near complete break from the world that had come before. Instead of being a matter of one ruling family wresting control from another or of one religion taking over from another, this was set forth as a revolution based on ideology and dedicated towards to extending justice and liberty to all it's citizens and not just those who had the right connections or religion. There are few things in human history as profound and far-reaching as this.
The Enlightenment had at least three distinct factions, divided by geography and ideological focus. The intial Enlightenment thinkers (now excepting the Age of Reason) were French: Rousseau, Voltaire, Diderot, and d'Alembert, among others). They were know as the philosphes or the Encyclopedists (as they were contributers to Diderot's Encyclopedia - itself revolutionary in the idea that people should be able to have ready access to information and that this access would destory ignorance and led to drastic social change). They were the most ideologically centered thinkers and, as the forces they opposed - Church and State - were most entrenched, they were also the most negatively oriented. Anti-clericsm was very strong in France as was the idea that the old order needed to be destroyed before the new one could be built.
The Scottish Enlightenment (wiki), (sometimes considered the English Enlightenment due to the role of John Locke and the dissident groups of England such as the Puritans) on the other hand was influenced by Scotland's status as one of the poorest country in Europe and the background of Calvinist Presbeterianism and took on a much more pragmatic and productive bent. The Scottish formed a lot of the thought that made up Utilitarianism. Also, besides the more philosophical concerns, he Scots turned to pratical applications, such as economics. Adam Smith, author of The Wealth of Nations and the granddaddy of systematic capitalism, was a member of the Scottish Enlightenment.
The American Enlightenment was directly influenced by the Scottish one, as the Scotch did a heck of a lot of teaching. Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and James Madison, among others, were pupils of members of the Scottish Enlightenment. America was presented with the problem of unifying a divided populace with extremely different concerns and ways of approaching the world. Thus, the American Enlightenment was even more pragmatic and concerned with application than the Scottish. It's no accident that two of the main, non-Enlightenment pupils, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine were men with a driving concern towards practicality. The proto-Americans were faced with the problem that Franklin expressed as "We must hang together or, assuredly, we will hang separately." This was true not just in reference to the revolution against the British, but also as to the future of the nation as a whole. The Constitution (primarily authored by James Madison and defended in the Federalist Papers by Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay - see how those names come up again) achieved this by forming entrenching the Enlightenment ideas of the rule of law, liberty, and tolerance into the framework of the new nation.
---
There was plenty of Christian influence in the development of American. Judeo-Christian ethics formed the backdrop of the Revolution and the formation of the constitution. Heck, it even formed the backdrop of the French Enlightenment, which was against the Church as an institution, not necessarily the ideals of the Christian religion. However, at a time when most of the nations of Europe were "Christian" nations, America was different through the new ideas of the Enlightenment, which has as one of their effects America being much less a "Christian" nation than the countries of the old order.
When peopel talk nowadays about Americ being a "Christian" nation, they generally don't seem to understand the Enlightenment, its central role in our country's develpoment, or how while it's not contrary to religion, it does limit the legitimacy of what they want to do. They tend to want to force other people to live by their religions rules because we live in a "Christian" nation. On the other hand, however, many people seem to regard the strong anti-clericism of the French Enlightenment and the blatant and savage anti-religiousity of the French Revolution to be part and parcel of what it means to be an Enlightenment nation. They seem to want to get rid of all traces of religion and make religious people feel as if they should feel ashamed of their belief. Neither one of these is true to the spirit of the founding of our country. Neither the Christian bigotry of the Maryland Act of Toleration nor the exclusionary, positivist nonsense of Thermidor should be part of our national character.
---
Of course, since there's such astounding ignorance of the things I just wrote about, what really is true to this spirit these days?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
