Irami, I'm not quite certain that I understand your perspective, in terms of practical directions. Could you expand on what you are trying to say in your last post?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: If someone tried to legislate/enforce who I can and can't sleep with I would probably reverse my stance on gun control,
I believe that is what gay people think right now.
KoM,
quote:On the subject of banning premarital sex and adultery, it's been tried.
Yeah, we tried that "abstinence only" thing too, but it seems to be making a comeback, even though it's been proven not to work.
Posts: 9871 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I am for civil rights for gays... all civil rights. But I will point out that after the supreme court struck down the Texas sodemy law that no states are currently trying to legislate/enforce who people are sleeping with, but instead whom they can marry. I think that was a huge step forward, that the sexual part of the relationships is itself no longer illegal... but I will not be happy about it until we have an acceptable civil union or marriage law nationwide.
In other words, not enough to make me arm myself and run for the border. Sorry, you won't get rid of me that easily.
Edit: But really, the way the country is going I need to start working out again so if it does happen I can look all Linda Hamiltonesque while I take out the morality cops and flee the country.
"Re" means again, or concerning, as in the word remember or the "re" in letter/email lines.
"ligere" is latin for bind or tie. The sense still lives in the word ligament.
Religion means remembering the bind or the tie, understanding that these binds are unseen. The negation still exists in the word negligent.
Different faiths see different ties, but all religions, by definition, speak to the existence of unseen bonds between people or God.
We live a society that's material and empirical. Even if I'm talking about a bond as obvious as a mother to a child, people are going to try to neglect that bond, or say it doesn't exist.
Without the existence of these bonds, a person is free to do what he/she wants, whenever he/she wants to. Clinton ignored the bonds of his marriage, and a blindspot in his character.
Without an acknowledgement of these bonds, there is no reason to trust. Acknowledging these bonds make trust possible. That's a big statement so I'm going to say. The existence of these bonds makes trust possible.
One reason people trust religious people is that religious people, even with all of the potentially suspect beliefs, have these bonds which make trust possible.
I think a lot of Christians get around this. They interpret free will as a free pass out of these bonds, instead of free will as the ability to neglect these bonds. They confuse the ability to break the rules with the ability to rewrite the rules. And when you through on top of this, all of the talk concerning redemption, it's almost like doing whatever you want whenever you want to.
One of the reasons Under God should remain in the Pledge is that it's a reminder that we are under something. We are duty bound to something not of our choosing. There are sixty reasons why that phrase should be taken out, but remembering that there is a bond that makes it improper to steal from or rape people, isn't a bad idea.
The problem with organized religion isn't religion. The problem with organized religion is it's elevation of belief or faith. What comes with that is a belief in or faith in God substitutes for being true to one another, and gives license to just do whatever one wants and let God sort it out.
I love Ephesians 5:21. Paul says, "Be subject to one another out of reverence of Christ." Being subject to one another. There is a humility there, a duty to one another. That's religion.
I hope this is clear. These are things I wish they taught in school. It's not establishing a belief system in a school, but it would be nice if kids were taught to be aware of, and on the look out for, these bonds.
I think we'd have fewer problems. I think it's too accepted for Christians to be casual because of Jesus's love, and work out the faith so that they get to keep the piety, a gun, a tidy profit, instead of, you know, feeding the sheep.
On a practical note enforcing a ban on pre-marital sex would be ludicrous. Either one would have to catch a couple in the act (ineffective) or what? Examine all unmarried women's hymens? What about the men?
The idea of legislating against pre-marital sex is a gross invasion of privacy and a blatant example of forcing one's own morals on other people with little, if any, regard for their rights and choices.
(I don't know if people were actually seriously suggesting it. But it would be a bad law. Bad morally and bad legally.)
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Examine all unmarried women's hymens? What about the men?
Men don't have hymens, dear.
Actually, Xap might be thinking in terms of a law that is not actively enforced, but whose mere presence on the books makes a statement about our official attitude on sexual morality. Kind of like how most anti-sodomy laws were.
-o-
Irami, I'm not questioning your belief that religion is a positive influence. Rather, I'm trying to get a feel for the consequence of this belief. Are you saying that morality should be encoded into law?
There seems to be this false dichotomy between legislating morality and not believing in any. I think you can be in the middle of this, and say that there are bonds, and honor, and moral and immoral things, but that it's parents', religion's, and every individual's job to teach this lesson, but not the law's job to enforce a sham of adherence to it.
I think our separation between church and state is one of the things that made America great. I think there are three very important principles that this country is founded on that are being dangerously eroded in this era of time, and people are allowing this to happen by bending to the force of demagoguery. These are separation of religion and matters of state, freedom of speech, and the ability of people to protect themselves from potential government tyrrany. And I think these are a more grave and immediate danger to us as a society than any slippage in morality you want to claim has happened in the last few decades.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Anyway, I know (think?) that no one is really suggesting this... but I still needed to share how utterly horrifying I find the prospect. Not because I feel the need to sleep around irresponsibily. But because it is none of your blessed business if I do.
But what if it is? What if you individual decision to have sex today, combined with the decisions of thousands of other Americans, results in a loosening of our society's sexual values - and ends up leading to my future children having premarital sex and getting pregnant out of wedlock at 16?
This is the problem... We want to exercise some control over the values of our society, because those values determine the environments in which our progeny will grow up, and will determine the future of our nation. But in order to do so, individual decisions becomes our business because it is individual decisions that determine the values of our society.
When we fought racism, we had to take action against individual racist attitudes. We had to crack down on discrimination in the work force. We had to bring pro-diversity programs into schools. Why was it our business? Because we were out to fix society's values.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying that morality should be encoded into law?
I'm saying that morality is already encoded into law, and pretending that it isn't, is a lie we tell ourselves. And instead of spending so much time pretending that there is a severe break between church and state, we should spend our time figuring out why there isn't and when is it appropriate for this to be the case, among of a society of people with fundamentally diverse, comprehensive moral doctorines.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"What if you individual decision to have sex today, combined with the decisions of thousands of other Americans, results in a loosening of our society's sexual values - and ends up leading to my future children having premarital sex and getting pregnant out of wedlock at 16?"
It won't matter. In this hypothetical world, the ice caps would have already melted, the magnetic poles would have reversed, and the government's attempts to outlaw gun ownership would have sparked a race war which eventually inspired North Korea to fire its nuclear arsenal, leading to the extermination of all life on the planet well before your future children missed their periods.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
The problem with your example is that racism caused immediate, direct, and identifiable harm to other people. The chain of causality in your future children scenario is weak at best.
But, to go with you for a moment, what if it does? It is your responsibility to raise your child according to your values and belief systems. It is not my responsibility to curtail my freedoms to make the world the place you desire for easy child-rearing.
I believe we have a greater responsibility to future generations, yes. The responsibility to pass down to them a healthy environment, a basic, functioning infrastructure, and the freedom to live as they choose. We must raise them the best we can and then respect them enough to make their own decisions.
Are they going to make the right choices every time? Probably not. Is every set of parents going to install the strong moral values that will enable them to make what I consider the right choices? Almost definately not. But your concern about your children does not give you the right to restrict my freedoms to this extent.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think we'd have fewer problems. I think it's too accepted for Christians to be casual because of Jesus's love, and work out the faith so that they get to keep the piety, a gun, a tidy profit, instead of, you know, feeding the sheep.
Just like to go on the record of saying that nearly every Christian I know feeds the sheep in one way or another.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Just like to go on the record of saying that nearly every Christian I know feeds the sheep in one way or another.
It's slippery. I think that there is an element of choice that snuck in there and is not at all appropriate to religion, as in, "I fed the sheep last week. I don't feel like feeding the sheep this week." Which is fine, except that there are still hungry sheep, and it's not up to what you feel like.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you suggesting we ignore concerns about future problems, Tom?
Given that Tom's post is in a large part about future problems, I'd say "no." I think -- and this is just a guess, here -- he's saying that there are considerably more important future problems to be worrying about.
<hyperbole>
Obviously some 52 million Americans disagree with him.
posted
Fixing one problem doesn't mean you need to ignore others.
I mean, Tom's a guy who's complained about "under God" being in the pledge of allegience... he should know less important future threats can still be important nonetheless. Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: But what if it is? What if you individual decision to have sex today, combined with the decisions of thousands of other Americans, results in a loosening of our society's sexual values - and ends up leading to my future children having premarital sex and getting pregnant out of wedlock at 16?
This is the problem... We want to exercise some control over the values of our society, because those values determine the environments in which our progeny will grow up, and will determine the future of our nation. But in order to do so, individual decisions becomes our business because it is individual decisions that determine the values of our society.
The parents of a child have a much, much, much stronger effect on the values of that child than 'society'. A child from a family whose parents instilled values in a child from an early age, and who practiced those values, has little to fear that society will 'corrupt' their children.
[ November 16, 2004, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Johnny Lee Wombat ]
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that that's a given Johnny Lee, but I'm not sure it needs to be. I think society has a huge and important effect on public morality. But I don't think creating laws to enforce morality will have the effect of creating morality. It's like a cause and effect thing, and people who believe we should legislate morality are, I believe, confusing the two. Laws may or may not reflect what we want our morality to be, but they cannot bring it into existence. They can, however, be used to oppress people.
EDIT to add: I do believe that society can have a corrupting influence on our children, despite parents' best efforts. (I wonder if most parents would agree with me. I think they would.) What I don't believe is that laws will fix this. Xap's example is a perfect case in point. Do I want my children to engage in premarital sex (when they are older)? No. But I don't think criminalizing the act is an effective way to prevent it, and I DO think that it can cause all sorts of other problems.
posted
Johnny, So, if you were a parent and looking for somewhere to live, you wouldn't worry about the effect that community would have on your kid? Do you think a child growing up in the rural midwest, versus an inner city ghetto, versus a rich suburban commmunity would all end up the same if they had the same parents?
Parents have a significant impact on children, but society ALSO does. If you move to Fallujah, for instance, it will have a big impact on who your child grows up to be.
quote: I'm not sure that that's a given Johnny Lee, but I'm not sure it needs to be. I think society has a huge and important effect on public morality.
I do think it is a very important point that needs to be discussed. I'm not saying it's 100%, but, in any case, there's been a lot of talk about how a society with 'loose' morals will lead to immorality as if this is an accomplished fact when no one has made these statements has even bothered to show that this is true. From my experience, this is generally *not* true. We do mostly grow up to be our mothers and fathers.
quote: But I don't think creating laws to enforce morality will have the effect of creating morality. It's like a cause and effect thing, and people who believe we should legislate morality are, I believe, confusing the two. Laws may or may not reflect what we want our morality to be, but they cannot bring it into existence. They can, however, be used to oppress people.
j
Totally agree. Morality flows from personal relationships, not the state, and certainly not from a few words on plaques or money.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Johnny, So, if you were a parent and looking for somewhere to live, you wouldn't worry about the effect that community would have on your kid? Do you think a child growing up in the rural midwest, versus an inner city ghetto, versus a rich suburban commmunity would all end up the same if they had the same parents?
Parents have a significant impact on children, but society ALSO does. If you move to Fallujah, for instance, it will have a big impact on who your child grows up to be.
Xap, if the parents have a strong relationship with their children, then there is little to fear from general society.
What do I mean by strong relationships? I mean familial relationships that are invested with time and energy.
Can children stumble and fall away from their parents? Sure. However, I think that most children who stumble and fall will quickly right themselves if they have a close, honest relationship with their parents.
Let me also say something about 'society'. People keep on using that word when it is not clear what they mean or even whether such a thing as general society exists. Is there such a thing as general society? What makes up general society? Or is general society a collection of the various diverse families, tribes, cultures and subcultures that comprise it? Does chaos in one portion of society necessarily translate into chaos, or loose morals, in another part of society?
In my opinion, society is a collection of diverse cultures that are, to a large degree, seperate from one another. Change in one portion does not necessarily translate to change in another portion.
I do think it is beneficial for families of one belief system to live around, or at least have a community with, other families with similiar beliefs to further help insulate that community from 'chaos'.
So, to get back to your question, I think a child(edit: woops) from a 'strong' Christian family in the geographical city of Fallujah would probably be a good Christian. Further, if that family had a strong community with other Christians, they would have little to fear from whatever the rest of Fallujah believed in. That is, chaos in the general community does not translate to chaos in a specific family or community.
[ November 16, 2004, 03:42 PM: Message edited by: Johnny Lee Wombat ]
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me say, real quick like, that I'm speaking strictly of morals, transmission of, between cultures and general society. When you start talking about a drastic change in the physical reality of a society, such as, say, destruction of home, a constant barrage of loud noises, the lack of food and water in an area, then this is a different set of parameters. I do agree that strong families can be helped to exist by the state by the state preserving peace and physical continuity and order around a family.
Posts: 43 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Fixing one problem doesn't mean you need to ignore others.
No, but there are so many other much more pressing and important problems that will have a much more direct effect on the future of your children that it seems more than a little nonsensical to worry about the decaying moral values of society. To me, at least. *shrug*
quote:I mean, Tom's a guy who's complained about "under God" being in the pledge of allegience... he should know less important future threats can still be important nonetheless.
quote: No, but there are so many other much more pressing and important problems that will have a much more direct effect on the future of your children that it seems more than a little nonsensical to worry about the decaying moral values of society. To me, at least. *shrug*
First, as I understand moral relativism, it means that an action that may not be moral in one context may be moral in a different context. The classic psychological example is called the "Heinz dilemma"
quote: In Europe, a woman was near death from cancer. One drug might save her, a form of radium that a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The druggist was charging $2000, ten times what the drug had cost him to make. The sick woman's husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could get together only about half of what it should cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or to let him pay later. But the druggist said no. The husband got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife. Should the husband have done that? Why?
Stealing is wrong, but allowing the wife to die is wronger. The law is on the druggists side, but the druggist's obstinance will cost a woman her life. So stealing is "relatively OK" because it will save the woman's life.
The Christian right is more supportive of Bush's war in Iraq (than liberals) on the grounds that "they attacked us." This is moral relativism. It's also hypocrisy, since Christianity teaches that we should "turn the other cheek" "love thy enemy" and "turn swords into plowshares." I see no evidence that the left uses moral relativism any more than the right does.
Second, I don't know where this idea that liberals are behind violent movies come from. The choice to make violent movies is a decision made by movie executives to enhance their bottom line. Is there some stereotype that movie executives are liberal? Movie stars, sure, but executives? The movie industry is big business. If there's a stereotype there, it's that big business tends to be conservative.
There may be examples of violent movies made by liberals, but they tend to be socially important movies like Schindler's list or Saving Private Ryan. And for that matter, Bruce Willis and Schwarzenegger are both conservative. I don't know about Jean Claude Van Damme and Stephen Segal, but I didn't see them lining up in support of Kerry.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's slippery. I think that there is an element of choice that snuck in there and is not at all appropriate to religion, as in, "I fed the sheep last week. I don't feel like feeding the sheep this week." Which is fine, except that there are still hungry sheep, and it's not up to what you feel like.
I guess I'm not understanding. Are you saying that a portion of Christians choose to give sometimes and not others? Is that different from those who are not Christians?
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying that a portion of Christians choose to give sometimes and not others? Is that different from those who are not Christians?
The non-Christians take ownership of their decision. There is a difference between saying, "I'm going to give when I want to," and saying, "God says I only have to give when I want to."
One person is an outright relativist, the other is a relativist who has somehow fooled him/herself that the Lord is cool with it.
posted
For me, I run across more of the "God says I'm supposed to give, but I'm not going to because it's all interpretation anyway."
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the record, it's open season for the next four years on Christians. Rove wants to mix politics with Christianity, that mixture goes both ways. Not the belief, that's not a political issue. But the decisions of the people who attribute the belief to their decisions are now up for scrutiny, by name. You want a "Christian" government. You want a government open for dissent, then there is going to be some organized religion declaiming.
quote:Second, I don't know where this idea that liberals are behind violent movies come from. The choice to make violent movies is a decision made by movie executives to enhance their bottom line. Is there some stereotype that movie executives are liberal? Movie stars, sure, but executives? The movie industry is big business. If there's a stereotype there, it's that big business tends to be conservative.
I'm going to wait and see how this one is answered. This very subject came up at work, with one of our few conservatives decrying the ruination of society by the liberal media elite. Unfortunately, because of his position in the company, I can't call him on his BS to his face.
Yet.
BTW, Grand Theft Auto: Liberal or Conservative creators? Liberal or Conservative audience?
South Park: Liberal or Conservative creators? Liberal or Conservative audience?
The Simsons? Liberal or Conservative creators? Liberal or Conservative audience?
posted
I don't have/watch any of the shows, but I imagine that liberals are blamed because we don't believe in banning any of them. _____
I was thinking about criminals today, though. I wonder if we could get a study of the past voting records of white collar criminals. I imagine street criminals don't make it out to the polls, and felons couldn't vote even if they wanted to.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Exactly. An ideal of free expression doesn't mean that all expression is liked by liberals. The same ideal that protects GTA protects Mormons and JWs and atheists.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for reference, my point was neither that future threats are inevitable and should be ignored, nor that not all future threats are of equal importance.
Rather, it was that some future threats are likelier than others.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am only responding to the first thread, at the moment, don't have the time or emotional capital to read the rest right now.
quote:Since the election brought this whole "moral values" issue to the forefront of American politics, liberals keep claiming that they have moral values too.
"Liberals keep claiming they have moral values too."
Dude. Dudette. Serious now, are you? Is your brain squeezed between your butt cheeks?
Who are liberals? The 57 million Americans who voted for John Kerry? Or are Liberals the adults who didn't vote for Bush?
If people and pundits were to ask me, I'd say that I believe I am a Norse Christian Jedi who thinks a Divine Monarchy might be the only think that can save society from ALL the Nations combined ignorance and weakness.
So this makes me a Radical Upper Centerist.
I'm not a liberal.
I'm a radical upper centerist Norse Christian Jedi, who loves the people of Earth, and am bound and honored to America and my fellow Americans, as brother and sister.
Born here, raised here.
This is my land, and you kids are my people.
Liberal?
It's a dumb toohey/fox vaguery term that melts 100 million faces into one being that doesn't exist.
Are we talking about
JESUS CHRIST
and
GOD
and
THE HOLY SPIRIT
or are we talking
about moral values?
Are we talking about GOD? Or are we talking about religion? or are we talking about 6 billion people? or are we talking about politicains?
Are we talking, or are we being wise?
quote:The liberal philosophy generally is that people decide their moral beliefs on their own - that it is not the government's job to influence them. It's okay to have an abortion if you want to. It's okay to have premarital sex if you want to. It's okay to show violent programming if you want to. It's okay to do whatever you want, just as long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. But not only is it okay - the government isn't going to judge you either, or even try to pursuade you.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
