Morals, Morality and God

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 10th, 2018, 11:56 am

Thinking critical,
I fully support your aversion to totalitarianism in religion. I would just expand it to include nonreligious ideologues as well.

Regarding Christian religions, they are all over the map. There are some, such as Episcopalians, who marry same sex individuals versus Catholics who oppose it. Abortion is permitted by some and even permitted by the Catholic religion to save the life of the mother. And in both cases this is only the authorities of these religions, who definitely do not represent all of their followers. This is just one example of the diversity of Christian beliefs.

You show examples of alleged aggressive Christian teaching on same-sex marriage and abortion. Yes I can think of similar secular aggressive teaching on subjects by secular groups. Two are same-sex marriage and abortion. If you question these two so-called rights publically, you most probably will meet with a barage of attacks, may lose your job, receive threats and hate mail. I am not sure if this meets your definition of secular groups. But they are not religious groups and their arguments are secular not religious.

I will concede that there is one basic tenent that is common to all Christian religion and which is heavily preached. That is Jesus' message of love. Although the application of this message has been poor at times, it's positive impact on all cannot be denied. So which is worse the absorption of this message or its rejection? Sometimes the innate truth of a philosophy justifies its preaching especially if it represents the absolute moral code, which brings us back to this topics' theme. So how do we know that this is the absolute moral code?

Iapetus
Posts: 400
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Iapetus » September 10th, 2018, 3:45 pm

Reply to Tommarcus:
A detailed response is not necessary, As I have already said it twice already, Congress makes the laws, not the Supreme Court. You don't want to believe this so do some research on the US government.

It is getting far, far away from the point of your original post but I don’t want you to think I am avoiding anything. The point which I originally made was related to laws and their interpretation. On 26 August I wrote, in reponse to your ‘proof’ that there was an attack on religion; “That is proof of nothing. If somebody objects sufficiently strongly to a manger scene that legal intervention is required, then it is for lawyers to interpret the principles”. The intention of that statement was for it to be broadly applicable and certainly beyond the bounds of the USA. I made that abundantly clear in the paragraph which followed; “Furthermore, in an international forum such as this, we should be careful with the use of phrases such as ‘our laws’. The laws in France similarly favour a separation of Church and State but those in the UK are still based on an established Church of England and Scotland. The principles in other countries are, of course, different again”. I was trying not to stray too far from the point of your original post.

You, however seem to want to take me on a tour of the US legal system. I don’t see why it is necessary, but here is my understanding of the overall structure. In the USA, laws are made at many levels. Congress proposes federal laws which are confirmed by the President. The Supreme Court has the power of judicial review and can invalidate a statute for violating a provision of the Constitution or an executive act for being unlawful. State laws are formulated by state legislatures and local laws strengthen or add to state laws. All are subject to federal decisions.

Do you now expect me to give you a rundown of the legislation process in every other country? Because, if you are only interested in morality – specifically in terms of ‘attacks on religion’ - as it applies in the USA, then you should have said so at the outset. Or you could have commented on my paragraph reminding you that other countries had legal systems which shared some aspects and differed in others. You may also have noted that many of the other correspondents are not resident in the USA.

This has been twisted by our legal system to mean that any religious display on public property imposes a religion on the public.


‘Our’ legal system is not ‘my’ legal system. I live in Strasbourg. In France. Which is not in the USA. I don’t mind at all making reference to the USA as long as you appreciate that there is a world beyond the borders.

There is a recent trend by weak-minded people that claim that any comment to which they disagree is either offensive or an imposition on them.


That says more about you than about them.
There is no reasonable way that this implies that I have used the past as a basis for justfying the present. Just the opposite. Nice try though.
No, I did not say that the Dred Scott Decision (1857 ?!) implied that you used the past as a basis for justifying the present. I never mentioned it. You did. My comment was distinctly related to your complaint that an objection to a religious display was unreasonable and needful of a psychiatrist because, “For decades, Christmas trees, Christmas symbols and manger scenes were allowed on public property and even in public schools”. You have avoided my specific instance and added one of your own choos!ng. You dodged it. Nice try though.

Like it or not this country was founded by great people who believed in God, (that includes Deists), and made reference to God throughout their discussions when building this country. This country has been protected by many people who died for it by believing in God …

I am astonished that you think I might take anything useful from this paragraph. I have told you that I have no objection to people believing things or to holding religious views; “I challenge you to find any instance where I have indicated that religion is not – or should not be – an important part of any democratic republic. I am also entirely in agreement that a ‘wall of separation between Church and State’ is an important means of assuring freedom of belief”. You have told me that “This country has been protected by many people who died for it by believing in God.” How is this any more than a religious rant?

Take a trip to Arlington and count the crosses and stars. This should not offend or take away from those who have died for our country who have not believed in God.


I don’t need to go to the USA for that. I have been to Verdun several times. At least 260,000 soldiers died there during World War I. I could not possibly name all the various reasons why those soldiers fought but I would not dare to try to link that sacrifice simply with belief in God. I am outraged by your sweeping assessment.

Is the fact that many of the Founders – about which you completely ignored my comments – believed in ‘God’ meant to have argumentative power? Do you genuinely think that I am not aware of such things? Is ‘morality’ a matter of numbers? Or the fact that people are prepared to die for their beliefs, perhaps by flying into tall buildings? Extraordinary.

I don't question the right of atheists to be citizens. Just the opposite. If Bush said that, then that would be a stupid statement. I have said that their beliefs should be equal to any religion and that they should be treated with the same rights and restrictions as any religion. As I said, trying to defend what politicians say is a tedious waste of time.


I never suggested that you question the right of atheists to be citizens. Yes, what Bush said was stupid. But, after saying it, he got elected!. You seem, again, to have missed the point. Regardless of your personal beliefs, are you unable to grasp that atheists may well try to resist such ignorant and stupid statements by the Chief Executive? A resistance that you interpret as ‘anti-religion’? I gave you other examples which you have ignored and I could continue with many others. You have provided me with absolutely no evidence worthy of the name for any significant ‘anti-religious’ movement. Nor any justification for your claim that “Our laws have gone far beyond the Constitutional requirement that the Government not establish a religion”.

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3274
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Fooloso4 » September 10th, 2018, 4:44 pm

The Manger in public space:

What if someone objects to a manger on religious grounds? For example, a Jew or Muslim who thinks it is sacrilegious to have a baby god and his mother on public display. Or a Christian whose religion strictly forbids iconography as idolatry?

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1077
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 10th, 2018, 5:37 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 6:40 am
ThomasHobbes wrote:I have a degree in Archaeology and am pretty sure I know a bit more about Rc dating than you do.
You didn't by any chance get that degree from the University of York did you? I only ask because I knew quite a lot of archaeology students there. It seems to be quite a big centre for the subject in the UK.
I studied under Shanks & Tilley at Lampeter.

The guys that wrote this.\https://www.amazon.co.uk/Social-Theory- ... 0745601847

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1077
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 10th, 2018, 5:41 pm

tommarcus wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 11:21 am
ThomasHobbes,

I am glad to hear that you have a degree in Archaeology. That means that when you read the book to which I have refetenced,

Oh my god... a "book".. It must be real.
What reference?
I'm not going to trawl through your meanderings.
People who "know" something is real without evidence are generally not worth the time of day. Be happy with your delusions.

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 10th, 2018, 9:48 pm

Fooloso4:

I believe in freedom of speech, no matter how disagreeable. I believe that people should have the right to say what they want on public or private spaces subject to safety laws. If someone can't take it, then they should figure out a way to deal with it. Or better yet, counter it with their own display or explanation.

That is what I expect of myself and own religion. I find plenty of beliefs disgusting both within and outside the major religions. I save my tears for millions who are really suffering throughout the world, not someone who is bothered by statues.

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 10th, 2018, 9:54 pm

ThomasHobbes,

I suggested you read the book not because it is a proof by virtue of being a book, but because of the evidence it contains. I hope you will read it and draw your own conclusions after that. As I indicated, I anxiously await your own theory about this Shroud and your own refutation of these scientists.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3017
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by LuckyR » September 11th, 2018, 2:14 am

Fooloso4 wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 4:44 pm
The Manger in public space:

What if someone objects to a manger on religious grounds? For example, a Jew or Muslim who thinks it is sacrilegious to have a baby god and his mother on public display. Or a Christian whose religion strictly forbids iconography as idolatry?
Funny, the folks who seek to place mangers on government grounds and cite Freedom of Religion are usually the first to object if the Satanists seek out equal time.
"As usual... it depends."

Iapetus
Posts: 400
Joined: January 5th, 2015, 6:41 pm
Location: Strasbourg, France

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Iapetus » September 11th, 2018, 3:53 am

Reply to Lucky R:

Precisely.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1077
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by ThomasHobbes » September 11th, 2018, 5:26 am

tommarcus wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 9:54 pm
ThomasHobbes,

I suggested you read the book not because it is a proof by virtue of being a book, but because of the evidence it contains. I hope you will read it and draw your own conclusions after that. As I indicated, I anxiously await your own theory about this Shroud and your own refutation of these scientists.
WHAT book?

User avatar
Thinking critical
Posts: 1793
Joined: November 7th, 2011, 7:29 pm
Favorite Philosopher: A.C Grayling
Location: Perth, Australia (originally New Zealand)

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Thinking critical » September 11th, 2018, 6:05 am

tommarcus wrote:
September 10th, 2018, 11:56 am

You show examples of alleged aggressive Christian teaching on same-sex marriage and abortion. Yes I can think of similar secular aggressive teaching on subjects by secular groups. Two are same-sex marriage and abortion. If you question these two so-called rights publically, you most probably will meet with a barage of attacks, may lose your job, receive threats and hate mail. I am not sure if this meets your definition of secular groups. But they are not religious groups and their arguments are secular not religious.
This is a valid point. I recall recently when the Australian government sent out a poll before passing the same sex marriage laws here, there was abuse and threats being made from both sides of the fence. It certainly raised some interesting questions in regards the freedom of speech.
However I do see one fundamental difference, although the secular side maybe infringing upon people's right to voice their opinions, those against same sex marriage (predominantly theists) are infringing upon someone's rights to engage in a marital status formally recognised by the state. Furthermore their is a certain judgment which one adheres to when making a case against same sex marriage either A) they believe in some sort of god ordained objective morality and are therefore objecting in gods name or B) have a personal agenda in that they believe same sex relations are inherently wrong because it disgusts them.
I suspect that option A) is simply a facade to hide behind for those who don't have the courage to project there own personal opinions, while simultaneously feeling empowered by the fact that they believe god is on there side.
Either way, the consequences of preventing two people from enjoying the same rights and benefits which straight people have, far out ways the consequences of being insulted for not keeping ones personal judgement to themselves.
This cocky little cognitive contortionist will straighten you right out

Fooloso4
Moderator
Posts: 3274
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by Fooloso4 » September 11th, 2018, 8:11 am

tommarcus:
I believe in freedom of speech, no matter how disagreeable.
You missed the point. Your example of the manger was supposed to be a proof of an attack on religion. If the objections are coming from religious people then it cannot be an attack on religion.

Protection of religion means protection from religion, and protection from religion means that no single religious symbol, such as a manger, should stand as representative of religion. It is representative of a particular religion, and thus has been ruled unconstitutional under the establishment clause.

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 11th, 2018, 10:01 pm

Lucky R,

Contrary to your statement, I absolutely want Satanists to have equal time. How else can everyone see how sick they are?

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 11th, 2018, 10:17 pm

Fooloso4,
I am sorry if I missed your point. Your question sounded like a request for my opinion. But it doesnt change my answer. Someone's weaknesses or opinions, religious or otherwise, should not be used as an excuse to limit freedom of speech. As our friend from France will tell you, now some women in his country have been attacked by Muslims for wearing bikinis because they consider this sacrilegious. I don't want that here.

It sounds profound but protection of religion does not mean protection from religion. The rulings on this (in the USA, for those that haven't figured this out) are far from over.

tommarcus
Posts: 95
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 10:54 am

Re: Morals, Morality and God

Post by tommarcus » September 11th, 2018, 10:46 pm

Thinking critical,

I strongly agree with you that two people who want to form a special relationship should not be prohibited from doing so. I actually take it one step further and believe that any two people who wish to form a bond or contract should be allowed to do so. It should make no difference if they are both gay, heterosexual, just good friends or agree to mutual companionship. That is none of my business until someone tries to force their beliefs on me by law or intimidation.

That is one reason why your assertion, that those who are against same sex marriage are either against it on religious grounds or revulsion, is wrong. I am against gay marriage but not because of either. I am for the right for everyone to form a civil union. I don't consider same sex marriage a moral issue. If your body and mind are not sexually in sync, then you have a problem but not a moral one. And all of us have problems. But my problems don't mean that I should change the definition of what is best for society.

It is my opinion that marriage is between a man and a woman. And it should remain that way because that is the message that we as society need to give to our kids. Sexuality is behavioral as well as physical which means it is learned to some degree. It has nothing to do with God.

So if you need to have a different relationship, do so. And if you want to make a civil union do so. But don't redefine marriage.

Post Reply