Traditional religious morality is what holds civilization as we know it together. It is clear to me that if we allow the current trend of western secularisation to continue, the moral bankruptcy and ultimate destruction of our society will be the end result. If the liberal elite continue their quest in the media and judicary to remove these traditions which the majority clearly support, then the only option open to the spiritually minded and moral person is to openly rebel against these immoral enemies of democracy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Why roll your eyes? I really would appreciate a less terse rebuke.
I've heard lots of people express the sentiment i am satirising, and I earnestly ask, what makes this sort of reasoning less applicable to say, Iran? I'm not directing this as an attack against any particular board member, or Orson Scott Card. My inspiration for this comes from what I've heard from pundits for the religious right in both my country and the US, coupled with what I've heard from my hometown's sizable community of Iranian expatriates. I know my vitrolic trolling is unlikely to win over any minds. Recent events have brought this to the forfront of my mind, and has made these questions a near constant annoyance. This is mostly just cathartic on my part.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Because your satire paints all religious believers with the actions of those of the most fanatical edge (wherein a lot of perversion of teachings exists).
Your satire equates believer with mis-guided zealot, but it is easy to take the extreme and equate it with the norm. Perhaps you should spend more time with regular believers than just seeking out the worst of anything.
Or perhaps we could simply equate those who are atheists or agnostics with Mao, Stalin and Hitler who actively sought out religious groups and slaughtered their adherents.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
"Or perhaps we could simply equate those who are atheists or agnostics with Mao, Stalin and Hitler who actively sought out religious groups and slaughtered their adherents."
Certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*sniff sniff* Ah, the smell of irony in the morning.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
Storm, ROFL
Heh, a good laugh in a religious thread, the morning after seeing "Passion of the Christ."
Priceless Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Sopwith: I am not speaking about all religious people, I am addressing those who would like their religious morality or beliefs reflected in law. I would call these people misguided zealots. I never addressed the issue of religious or spiritual belief alone.
Also, I'm curious as to where you got the idea Hitler was an atheist? I seem to recall that he was Roman Catholic.
Posted by Bob the Lawyer (Member # 3278) on :
Of course, there's no reason to limit it to the religious right. There are plenty of people crying out that religion will ruin society with its out-of-date morals and antiquated ways of thinking. How could some sort of mass-delusion actually help society?
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Also, I would consider Stalin and Mao misguided zealots. Not religious ones, certainly, but their singleminded belief in a utopian fantasy, and the atrocities they commited in its name makes the term zealot weak if anything. Bringing up the names of some evil megalomaniacs who happened to be atheists isn't going to convince anyone that they commited their crimes because of their lack of religious belief.
As long as we are going to bring up atrocites, I think I may as well bring up some relevant to my point, ones I think it is fair to say were caused primarily by religion, or religious authorities, or at the least, severely exacerbated by them: the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Armenian genocide, the reconquista, pretty much the entire early expansion of Islam, the Thirty Years War, 9/11, and if the stories in the Bible are to be taken at face value, the countless atrocities justified as the will of God within its pages.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Bob, I tend to agree. People like Thomas Jefferson understood that religion can be extremely dangerous, and needs to be kept in the private domain. The power of the state used for religious ends has consistently lead to horrific abuses.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
I'm not sure that anyone has EVER argued that ANY religious morality is better than secularism.
And the argument "Muslim extremist morality is bad for society, so secularism must be good" is quite clearly a fallacy I think. It is definitely possible that both are bad, and that both would corrupt our society.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
How come when you point out the lunatic fringe of any debate, you get the responce, "They don't represent us all. Why are you attacking all of us."
Um, we aren't. We are attacking the lunatic fringe. We know they don't represent all of you. However, when you group yourself in with that fringe element in a knee jerk defence, you are aligning yourself up with that fringe.
I am not just refering to the Christians or Conservatives. This goes for Liberals and others as well.
When PETA does something notoriously stupid, you get vegetarians saying, "They are not with us. Why do you pick on vegetarians? This is a plot by the meat producers of America to outlaw all vegetarians."
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Why should the law not be based upon religion? I have not seen any better reasons, although there are some I would say are as good as a religious faith.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Dan, the original post wasn't attacking the lunatic fringe, it was equating anyone who opposes ongoing secularization with the lunatic fringe.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Danzig--the question becomes, which religion. The next question, what becomes of those who follow other religions.
Dagonee--I understand. That answers the specifics of this thread. I am asking more generally, for example, the Secularists reaction to the extreme examples of Stalin, Hitler, Mao.
I do want to rephrase "Lunatic Fringe" to "Extremeists" though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
OK, Dan. I agree with that assessment.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Why should the law not be based upon religion? I have not seen any better reasons, although there are some I would say are as good as a religious faith.
First and foremost, because of what Dan posted.
But also because religion is an appeal to authority, typically without any "reasons" provided other than "God doesn't like it" or "God likes it."
Now, there may be good underlying reasons for the rules that are presented by a religion. They may make good sense. And they may even be the best rules available for guiding people on how to lead their lives.
BUT! If we can't articulate a more reasonable basis for the law than "God says so," every law we have on the books will be subject to the problems of:
- unbelief or different belief - interpetation of scripture - inconsistency (competing holy word) - rigidity -- how do you alter laws that are set down in Scripture, but need to be revised to meet a new situation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
But all of my "articulable reasons" derive from my religion as well.
Why do I care if we fund cancer research? Because we should heal the sick and work to reduce suffering.
Dagonee
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
So the people with a different religion can try to get their beliefs put into the law, and if their beliefs say so, they can try to exterminate those who do not follow their religion. If they have the numbers, they win. Also, while I believe homosexuality is wrong solely because my religion says so, that does not mean I really care what happens with it outside the church. Not going to fight for it until I see homosexual advocacy organizations allying with organizations that support mygoals, but not going to try to stop it either. People of the same faith can disagree with each other, like Belle and dkw.
I am forced to pay taxes, I am supposed to (and do) stop at red lights even in the middle of the night when no one is within a mile of me, I am not supposed to smoke a joint... I really could care less why I am being oppressed, as long as I am. If you manage to get rid of all the religions you do not like because they have a problem with homosexuals, women, or people who eat the wrong type of meat, you will have accomplished nothing. If you are lucky you might stop the intolerance and oppression on those particular issues, although I must admit I am not that optimistic. You will not stop intolerance and oppression in general.
Appeal to authority? If my concept of God is valid, then appealing to him as an authority is valid. I recognize that those who are not of my faith would find one of the premises to be inaccurate, but I do not and I am only responsible for my own actions, not theirs. They are perfectly free to justify their attempts in the same way I do mine. If I actually believed what Osama does, I would have much less of a problem with the man and his actions than I do now, and even now I understand where he is coming from. If I thought legislating morality in general actually worked I might actually push for stricter abortion laws and the denial of all marriage rights to homosexuals.
Bottom line, why does it matter so much to you that religions are responsible for and/or pushing for some oppression, when most of the problem is greedy, worthless politicians anyway? Very few of them actually care about gay marriage for its own sake. Lots of them used all manner of illegal drugs when they were younger, but ask around and I bet you will find most of them support the prohibition of drugs. I could care less if you take my 2.5% of my money to bomb Iraq instead of taking it to support single mothers. I am still out the cash, and I would probably not voluntarily give it to either cause. How is that different than living in a country with sharia and being forced to donate 2.5% (or whatever) more in taxes because I am not a Muslim? Hell, you probably have to pay more nowadays, but actually 2.5% would be an improvement over what is taken now.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
quote:So the people with a different religion can try to get their beliefs put into the law, and if their beliefs say so, they can try to exterminate those who do not follow their religion. If they have the numbers, they win.
I'm speechless.
Danzig, if you don't understand why living under sharia is worse than paying taxes to support a welfare state, if you think that they are equatable as oppression, then watch the video I linked to.
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
Sharia likely would be more of a pain, unless I was lucky enough to be born into the ruling class. But oppression is oppression, no matter what the degree.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((rivka)))
Strong morality must exist for law and order. Everything is based on moral ideas. For instance, why is rape bad? It can only be classified as bad once you accept notions of rights, and rights are purely based on moral ideas. So, yes, people who destroy morality are destroying the fabric of civilization. If they keep ripping, the entire carpet will rip apart.
(((rivka)))
[ February 26, 2004, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*wonders why she got singled out for hugs*
Phanto, are you Pat?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think Phanto thought you were rolling your eyes at the literal words, not the author's pointed message contained in the links.
Dagonee *Just a thought.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*ponders* Ok, but then I still don't understand why I'm the only one in the thread getting hugged. I'm not complaining; I just don't understand the intent. Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
rivka, Phanto has done this in every post I've ever seen him write.
If he replies to you, he hugs you.
No one seems to know if he actually knows he's hugging people or not...
Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :
Phanto, I believe in a strong moral code, but thanks for the explanation.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
(((Chaeron)))
I, based on my own study of Russian history, view Stalin not as a zealot concerned about the working class, but rather as a power hungry tryant, willing to slaughter millions of people to further his hold on Russia.
But I must be misguided. After all, he wouldn't actually kill people to further his power, right? I mean that's mean and evil. He must have been deluded into believing that he was doing the right thing.
Anyway, I'll repeat myself. Everything, and everything, is based on a strong moral code system. Law, order, civilization--without morality, you have none of this!
(((rivka)))
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I agree Phanto, Stalin was a paranoid, power hungry tyrant, and certainly evil far beyond being misguided or overzealous towards a cause; however, he justified his actions through his Marxist ideology. My point wasn't so much to nail down his reasons for what he did, but to cast doubt on the idea that his atheism was the cause, or even a significant factor.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." -Blaise Pascal
I bring up this quote because it is said by someone who was by all accounts devoutly religious. Perhaps he was able to realise that religion belongs in the private sphere, and that forcing one's religious beliefs on others is wrong.
On to points about morality: I believe in morality, just not any kind of religious morality. I believe in the values of the Enlightenment, and the rich canon of secular moral and political philosophy upon which the ideals of the American Revolution were born. These are the values that are being threatened when attempts are made to write one groups religious beliefs into the consitution to prevent others from having equal rights.
Posted by BrianM (Member # 5918) on :
For those who contend religion is the source of morality, there is a strong argument that secular morality would exist without religion in the form of the "Veil of Ignorance" argument. For those unfamiliar with it it is a philosophical argument that begs the question how would you organize society if you did not know what place you would have in it? The asnwer is obvious, you would want to make things as equitable AND equal as possible. Rauls expanded on this with the difference principle which states that any inequalities that exist should exist with deference to the plight of the worst off in society.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This philosphy covers only one-third of morality - i.e. what duty do people owe to each other. There's also the matter of the duty people owe to themselves and the duty they owe to the Universe at large (this would be the duty to God in a religious context).
There's no particular reason morality should only deal with the first scenario. Although many people, myself included, think the law should mainly deal with the first category, morality as a whole must deal with all three. Even if it's only to say "there is no duty to the self or to the Universe." But in stating that, it would have to be able to show why this is the case. Hard to do without some first principles.
Dagonee
[ February 27, 2004, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
quote:Although many people, myself included, think the law should mainly deal with the first category, morality as a whole must deal with all three.
I guess where we differ on this issue is that I think the law should only deal with the first category.
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
I was waiting for someone to bring up Rawls. Certainly one of the greatest moral philosophers of all time. His work in advancing the ethics of liberal democracy cannot be understated. It's a shame he's no longer with us. I was actually in a course covering A Theory of Justice when he died last year.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you don't think their need to be cruelty to animal laws, Chaeron? Such laws don't deal with how one person treats another (assuming you don't steal someone's pet to be cruel, to, and that's covered by theft laws).
Dagonee
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Well, it's not as simple as I made it out to be. A better way of phrasing it would be to say that law should only pertain to interactions between moral agents. This would extend it to include animals, which are not moral agents to the extent that people are, but which do deserve some degree of moral consideration as conscious beings with the capacity to experience pain and suffering.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I would agree with that, but there's obviously a lot of potential disagreement about both what a "moral agent" is and what a regulable "effect" is. That's why I used "mainly."
Dagonee
Posted by Chaeron (Member # 744) on :
Well, perhaps you'd like to give your definitions then?
Posted by Hobbes (Member # 433) on :
quote:Well, it's not as simple as I made it out to be. A better way of phrasing it would be to say that law should only pertain to interactions between moral agents. This would extend it to include animals, which are not moral agents to the extent that people are, but which do deserve some degree of moral consideration as conscious beings with the capacity to experience pain and suffering.
I would be curious to hear yours and why they are true.
[EDIT: Wow, that sounded really snarky. I promise, I did not mean it in a snarky way at all, just curious to hear your views and where they came from. ]
Hobbes
[ February 27, 2004, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Hobbes ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I don't think there are easy definitions.
For example, the point at which an unborn child becomes a "moral agent" drives most of the abortion issue.
What constitutes a regulable effect? Physical harm and property theft or destruction certainly. Mental effect? Most people say, "no" right off the cuff, but we punish threats and intimidation based on the mental effects caused by the criminal's actions. Burning a cross is criminal in many states even on private property.
Dagonee
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
A problem with the "Veil of Ignorance" argument has occurred to me as I read this thread. It may have been covered in the original material, which I am not familiar with.
The argument suggests that, not knowing what form society will take, you should be willing to give up the potential for a higher position in order to prevent the potential for a lower, suffering position. But if you are willing to give up potential benefit for yourself, then you are capable of conceiving that your own maximum personal benefit may not be best for society. You might then decide that society as a whole, or a majority of people, will be bettered by some people benefitting less than others--perhaps even actively suffering.
Posted by aka (Member # 139) on :
Maybe he's just trying to get your attention. Sort of like putting his hands on either side of your face and looking you right in the eye?
Isn't it funny how quickly we forget that <<<<rivka>>>>> is a parenthesis that stands for a hug and start thinking that it IS a hug? Do you people see what I mean about the way brains react to stimuli in threespace and cyberspace? The symbol becomes the thing. </digression>
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Maybe he's just trying to get your attention. Sort of like putting his hands on either side of your face and looking you right in the eye?
And if someone I barely knew did that, I would get rather snippy.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
*wonders why she got singled out for hugs*![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)