quote:If the majority of Americans think of this as a Christian nation, then it is a Christian nation. Not because the government says it is, but because the population says it is.
Out of curiosity, if the US is a Christian nation, does that mean that non-Christians are less American or not American at all? (This is not meant to be trollish, I really want to know.)
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I think it all comes down to, is that religion and beleifs have a very strong influence on the way people make decsicions. I think that in the case of someone who is running a country, this can be a good or a bad thing (depending on the government). In the U.S. it is pretty much impossible to avoid this because most people have a religion that influences them. Our government today happens to have many christian participants. It is taking these religiosly influenced descicions to an extreme that we have to look out for. I havent decided for myslef if I think denying gay couples their marriage licenses is crossing the line. There are some points they make that don't seem to be religious issues.
quote:They are simple beliefs of what is right or wrong.
i have to take issue with this statement, not so much in that it is untrue (obviously, morality is a set of beliefs about what is right and wrong) but about the possibility of believing in right and wrong absent some sort of theistic belief/value system. the concepts of right and wrong require some type of authority higher than onesself, some legitimacy outside of the individual. to say that something is intrinsically and morally right is to say that it is right for everyone because "right" is dictated by something (the natural order, god, goddesses, whatever). of course, there's the "right for me" argument, which essentially breaks down into enlightened self interest which i would not call a moral system as much as a method of living in harmony with whatever one defines as their environment.
i should mention that i'm agnostic, so if this bothers some of the athiests/agnostics here at least know that i'm not trying to belittle your moral system... Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's been my experience that most non-theists either appeal to some sort of logic (e.g. utilitarianism) for the source of their moral systems or hold relativist moral codes. Or both, I suppose.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
"he concepts of right and wrong require some type of authority higher than onesself, some legitimacy outside of the individual. to say that something is intrinsically and morally right is to say that it is right for everyone because "right" is dictated by something"
Depends on how you mean "dictated" by "something."
For example, I think right and wrong are based upon maximizing the ability of people to live together without serious conflict. If thats "dictated by something" then I agree with you. If not... then I disagree.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think right and wrong are based upon maximizing the ability of people to live together without serious conflict
i would argue that utilitarianism really isn't a moral system, in that it doesn't label things as right and wrong so much as it labels them beneficial and detrimental (to the stated goal of profiting the species as a whole). in the end this will inevitably degenerate into an argument about semantics and to what degree concepts of right and wrong are granted transcendency.
Posts: 380 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
