I'm talking about a basis for the moral code of conduct that one follows. Obviously, (at least to me), you were raised being taught a moral code of conduct. I would be willing to bet that moral code of conduct comes from a religious origin. However, someone who decides to abrogate the hard rules of a strict (religious) moral code of conduct, in order to feel guilt-free or allow themselves the freedom when committing certain acts, has lost the full moral compass which drives morality. Certainly many people of many religions commit many morally wrong acts... As far as Christianity is concerned there was only one person who walked the earth completely without sin... everyone else is a sinner in one form or another. I am not here and would not try to defend someone else's immoral or illegal acts, regardless of their religion. When one doesn't cheat on their spouse because of their own agnostic subjective morality that the act is wrong does not mean that can't change to a guilt-free infidelity. Simply modify the subjective morality and realize that "marriage" is actually nothing but a civil contract that can be broken at any time and many people quickly rationalize away their infidelities along with their guilt. It is part of the reason that "infidelity" has basically ceased being a reason for divorce in the liberal areas of the country. Being faithful to one's spouse based on a strict, codifed (in some religious doctrine) code of moral conduct holds much deeper ramifications. It is easy to say that one's own subjective moral code allows for this or that conduct and it is the method used to get us to this point in our history. Morality has changed. If you want to condemn Christians because they owned slaves in the past, you must condemn every religion in the world. Slavery isn't and wasn't unique to the US OR Christianity. That argument just doesn't have wings. To point out that "most embezzlers, cheats, liars etc are self professed Christians (by virtue of most Americans being Christian) can only be responded to with... Duh...
It seems that there is a complete disdain for religion here... (well, except Islam since 9/11/2001... have to stay "PC"...) You can bash Christianity all you want, but it doesn't show your superior "enlightenment" by any means. What it shows is willingness and desire to maintain a subjective morality set of rules as a code of conduct.
On denying rights to LGB groups
Actually, no there was no disdain for religion demonstrated. I said that being Christian doesn't make you good--or bad. I don't have any problem with following religious codes of conduct, provided the conduct itself doesn't bother me. I just refuse to believe that any religious code is better than mine just because its religious. Christianity doesn't make you good, or bad--another way to put this is that I don't think it makes you inferior--or superior.
Yes, that means I'm deciding for myself whether I think certain conduct is appropriate rather than relying on hard and fast rules from an ancient religious text. However I don't think that's bad because bending of those hard and fast rules is quite well established--see examples in previous post. And sometimes the proposed rules ARE unacceptable. Proposed religious rules from some islamics includes discriminating against women--not letting them go to school, wear normal clothing, drive, vote, decide whom to marry, or even get hospital care because women can't learn medicine nor can males examine the famale patients. Are we supposed to be excited because those rules are black and white and / or religious? I think not. We have two choices for why we don't like those rules--either we can get into a universally unsuccessful religious based squabble that says OUR religious rules are better than THEIRS, or we can complain that those rules aren't consistent with the reasonable secular values put forth to guide our society--equality, free communication, free trade, free religion, and so on. Those are things we can justify without pointing to a book that Islamist isn't interested in because he has his own.
Religion, christian or otherwise, is neither necessary or sufficent to make you a moral person. Might it help? Certainly. However I believe in worrying more about the example a person puts forth and the values they endorse and follow rather than whether those ideas are derived from secular reasoning or come from a religious text. I have nothing against rules being religious in origin but historically many of those religious rules have been false or unjust and so the fact that they're religious doesn't make them inherently good. They are just as subject to debate and scrutiny as my non-religious ideals. "Thou shalt not kill:" good rule. Well, we need to think about that--we kill intruders, we kill dinner--obviously some thinking has to go on there. It actually gets fairly complicated, even with the simple stuff: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm
And I see no reason why it should be assumed my ideals are more susceptible to whim than religious ideals. Again, religious ideals have been warped to allow slavery. And if we didn't judge religious ideas on their own strength rather than just assuming they're correct, the earth would still be the center of the universe.
Yes, that means I'm deciding for myself whether I think certain conduct is appropriate rather than relying on hard and fast rules from an ancient religious text. However I don't think that's bad because bending of those hard and fast rules is quite well established--see examples in previous post. And sometimes the proposed rules ARE unacceptable. Proposed religious rules from some islamics includes discriminating against women--not letting them go to school, wear normal clothing, drive, vote, decide whom to marry, or even get hospital care because women can't learn medicine nor can males examine the famale patients. Are we supposed to be excited because those rules are black and white and / or religious? I think not. We have two choices for why we don't like those rules--either we can get into a universally unsuccessful religious based squabble that says OUR religious rules are better than THEIRS, or we can complain that those rules aren't consistent with the reasonable secular values put forth to guide our society--equality, free communication, free trade, free religion, and so on. Those are things we can justify without pointing to a book that Islamist isn't interested in because he has his own.
Religion, christian or otherwise, is neither necessary or sufficent to make you a moral person. Might it help? Certainly. However I believe in worrying more about the example a person puts forth and the values they endorse and follow rather than whether those ideas are derived from secular reasoning or come from a religious text. I have nothing against rules being religious in origin but historically many of those religious rules have been false or unjust and so the fact that they're religious doesn't make them inherently good. They are just as subject to debate and scrutiny as my non-religious ideals. "Thou shalt not kill:" good rule. Well, we need to think about that--we kill intruders, we kill dinner--obviously some thinking has to go on there. It actually gets fairly complicated, even with the simple stuff: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_10co.htm
And I see no reason why it should be assumed my ideals are more susceptible to whim than religious ideals. Again, religious ideals have been warped to allow slavery. And if we didn't judge religious ideas on their own strength rather than just assuming they're correct, the earth would still be the center of the universe.
--Ian
Very good...
(sometimes I wonder if others read these discussions or if we can just quit posting and get together for a laugh and drink...
)
Anyway, I only have two comments:
First, I agree that it doesn't really matter where they came from, regardless the 10 Commandments are 10 of the best basic rules to follow in one's life. The fact that they are from a Judeo-Christian tradition has extra values to some folks. Also, once people can gain a positive moral compass and understanding of the world, they can understand that things are rarely black & white with a hard & fast line drawn in the middle. Thus, there are instances where things may be against certain individual phrases of guidance, but still be morally acceptable (IMNSHO). A common "gray-area" example is often given as the person who sins by stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving children. Along those lines, I believe that there can be circumstances )fortunately I've never had them in my immediate family) where a person decide to not honor their parents because of abuse. Which also leads me to...
Second, while it is commonly stated that the 10 Commandments say, "Thou shall not kill", the fact is that just isn't true. It is written that way in some places and has been propagated like a plague, but from the old Hebrew of the texts there are more accurate translations. It states, "Thou shall not murder."
There is a huge difference as I'm sure you'll agree. With that, we can see two things... that there are inaccuracies in some translations, preventing one from making too literal an interpretation, AND that there isn't any prohibition on killing in self-defense... among other things.
Reading the 10 Commandments in Exodus, the last 6 are really the only ones that give a set of moral rules. The first 4 consist of rules for the way one respects God.
(sometimes I wonder if others read these discussions or if we can just quit posting and get together for a laugh and drink...
)Anyway, I only have two comments:
First, I agree that it doesn't really matter where they came from, regardless the 10 Commandments are 10 of the best basic rules to follow in one's life. The fact that they are from a Judeo-Christian tradition has extra values to some folks. Also, once people can gain a positive moral compass and understanding of the world, they can understand that things are rarely black & white with a hard & fast line drawn in the middle. Thus, there are instances where things may be against certain individual phrases of guidance, but still be morally acceptable (IMNSHO). A common "gray-area" example is often given as the person who sins by stealing a loaf of bread to feed their starving children. Along those lines, I believe that there can be circumstances )fortunately I've never had them in my immediate family) where a person decide to not honor their parents because of abuse. Which also leads me to...
Second, while it is commonly stated that the 10 Commandments say, "Thou shall not kill", the fact is that just isn't true. It is written that way in some places and has been propagated like a plague, but from the old Hebrew of the texts there are more accurate translations. It states, "Thou shall not murder."
There is a huge difference as I'm sure you'll agree. With that, we can see two things... that there are inaccuracies in some translations, preventing one from making too literal an interpretation, AND that there isn't any prohibition on killing in self-defense... among other things.
Reading the 10 Commandments in Exodus, the last 6 are really the only ones that give a set of moral rules. The first 4 consist of rules for the way one respects God.
Panther, dunno about you, but I've had laughs online already--what's proposed for the drinks? 
There are a lot of inconsistencies and debatable issues as far as the ten commandments go. A lot of these details including the kill/murder dichotomy are well reviewed in the site I mentioned above. Suffice to say that I believe given the diversity of opinions regarding the various different sets of ten, and their meanings, and various exceptions, any politician who's promoting "The" Ten Commandments for public use is FOS. They're more interested in giving the appearance of piety than in being pious. More thoughtful politicians might... follow the Ten they believe in and allow others to make up their own minds.... promote their Ten but not mandate them... promote some modern Ten that are acceptable to followers of all faiths and to people of secular thought... anything other than promote something as vague as "the ten commandments." It's a lot like standing behind the flag and against flag burning because that is the superficially patriotic stance--although being truly patriotic to me means supporting the ideals represented by the flag, among them free speech, which means discouraging but allowing flag burning.
As for the news of note.... the massachusetts consitution doesn't have an amendment set for a vote anytime soon as all proposed versions failed--they wouldn't have made it to the ballot in time to halt the marriages anyway. In san francisco they're handing out marriage licenses (the state says they're going to reject because the form was altered to revise the language "bride" and "groom") in violation of California state law, although the city believes, within reason because of equal rights provisions in other state laws. Bush apparently is going to support amending the Consitution of the united states to ban gay marriage... Perhaps it will all come down to whether Ralph Nader has the common sense to withdraw from the race or whether he's actually a Republican double agent who wants to hand TWO sequential elections to Bush.
Either way, while seeing some 80-something year old lesbians and lifetime partners FINALLY get to say vows to each other in a flly equal ceremony was certainly touching, in a pragmatic way I see those Californian ceremonies as po'ing a lot of people and setting the whole movement back. People need more time to digest the issue so it's resolved without some embarrassing amendment. And while pre-massachusets supreme court fracas, more mass residents supported marraige than opposed, things are reversed now. It's a lot as if you asked your spouse if we ought to eat more healthily and they said yes, but now that they're eyeing the bulghur and tofu on the plate in front of them they're a little less certain. People are usually more committed to ideals than realities.
There are a lot of inconsistencies and debatable issues as far as the ten commandments go. A lot of these details including the kill/murder dichotomy are well reviewed in the site I mentioned above. Suffice to say that I believe given the diversity of opinions regarding the various different sets of ten, and their meanings, and various exceptions, any politician who's promoting "The" Ten Commandments for public use is FOS. They're more interested in giving the appearance of piety than in being pious. More thoughtful politicians might... follow the Ten they believe in and allow others to make up their own minds.... promote their Ten but not mandate them... promote some modern Ten that are acceptable to followers of all faiths and to people of secular thought... anything other than promote something as vague as "the ten commandments." It's a lot like standing behind the flag and against flag burning because that is the superficially patriotic stance--although being truly patriotic to me means supporting the ideals represented by the flag, among them free speech, which means discouraging but allowing flag burning.
As for the news of note.... the massachusetts consitution doesn't have an amendment set for a vote anytime soon as all proposed versions failed--they wouldn't have made it to the ballot in time to halt the marriages anyway. In san francisco they're handing out marriage licenses (the state says they're going to reject because the form was altered to revise the language "bride" and "groom") in violation of California state law, although the city believes, within reason because of equal rights provisions in other state laws. Bush apparently is going to support amending the Consitution of the united states to ban gay marriage... Perhaps it will all come down to whether Ralph Nader has the common sense to withdraw from the race or whether he's actually a Republican double agent who wants to hand TWO sequential elections to Bush.
Either way, while seeing some 80-something year old lesbians and lifetime partners FINALLY get to say vows to each other in a flly equal ceremony was certainly touching, in a pragmatic way I see those Californian ceremonies as po'ing a lot of people and setting the whole movement back. People need more time to digest the issue so it's resolved without some embarrassing amendment. And while pre-massachusets supreme court fracas, more mass residents supported marraige than opposed, things are reversed now. It's a lot as if you asked your spouse if we ought to eat more healthily and they said yes, but now that they're eyeing the bulghur and tofu on the plate in front of them they're a little less certain. People are usually more committed to ideals than realities.
--Ian
-
Dana Sheets
- Posts: 2715
- Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:01 am
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/ ... index.html
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
President Bush said:
If your'e interested in signing a petition in support of gay marriage you can visit:
http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/index.shtml
If you're not, that's your right too. However I offer you these words by Clarence Darrow.
Bush calls for same-sex marriage-ban amendment
President Bush said:
Hmmm....wasn't slavery a social institution at one point? OK, OK I know - cheap shot. I choose to disagree with the president. For many of the reasons mentioned previously on this thread - limiting the role of government in the lives of US citizens is exactly why we should allow gay marriage."America is a free society, which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens." "This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefining of one of our most basic social institutions."
If your'e interested in signing a petition in support of gay marriage you can visit:
http://www.hrc.org/millionformarriage/index.shtml
If you're not, that's your right too. However I offer you these words by Clarence Darrow.
DanaYou can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.
Did you show compassion today?
Being followed and given that "Freedom" is very much on most Americans minds... why the issue? Gays are of no threat to freedoms of others and moral code of conduct changes with society, no harm in this day and age with a marrage regardless of race,color or sexual preference(s)...(sometimes I wonder if others read these discussions or if we can just quit posting and get together for a laugh and drink... )
Léo
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
Ok, just to review... the previous alcoholic and user of cocaine (who's since suported severe penalties for cocaine users in Texas) that used his priviledge not just to get the kind of ivy league admissions he would deny on the basis of race but not $ but to evade the kind of military service (a war against a country representing a dubious threat to the USA, the evidence for which is now all in doubt) he now directs, by spending 100k of taxpayer $ on fighter pilot training he didn't use (except perhaps in his aircraft carrier publicity stunt) and in fact left early to pursue business school at Harvard, the same one who gave a tax break primarily to the rich, and the bill to our children, but managed to pass it off as a break to the average person, the same guy who has gutted environmental regulations after meeting only with industry representatives and not once with environmental groups, has now truly stepped into the history books (other than being the first president since--was it Hoover?--to lose jobs on his watch)....
First president to support amending the Consitution of the United States to REQUIRE discrimination, ostensibly to "protect" marriage from 1-5% of the country that simply wants the same guarantees of hospital visitation, inheritance, joint custody, medical decision making etc that everyone else already enjoys.
Or if you want to put a face on it, the President of the United States has nothing more important to do than defend the USA from those dangerous lesbians, partnered >50 years, who finally said vows in San Fran and made the cover of the Los Angeles times while I was out there visiting.
Phew. Ok, I feel better now. Everything's fine, after all, he did say he was going to be a "uniter, not a divider." That's reassuring.
First president to support amending the Consitution of the United States to REQUIRE discrimination, ostensibly to "protect" marriage from 1-5% of the country that simply wants the same guarantees of hospital visitation, inheritance, joint custody, medical decision making etc that everyone else already enjoys.
Or if you want to put a face on it, the President of the United States has nothing more important to do than defend the USA from those dangerous lesbians, partnered >50 years, who finally said vows in San Fran and made the cover of the Los Angeles times while I was out there visiting.
Phew. Ok, I feel better now. Everything's fine, after all, he did say he was going to be a "uniter, not a divider." That's reassuring.
--Ian
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
Found this while scanning the new today. Interesting to note that there are rumors of a big outing campaighn to "out" prominent Repubs to show hypocricy 
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4408613/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4408613/
Not that democrats are immune from this, but--you don't have to out republican leaders to show their hypocrisy, just pair their statements and actions. An expose on closeted right wingers, while crude, would be in line with history (see McCarthyite Roy Cohn) and with research (including a study showing that self professed heterosexual men who exhibited higher levels of arousal to gay images endorsed more anti-gay philosophies).
It would be unfortunate if the right manages to make this equal rights debate--
(debate about what I'm still not sure--no one has ever explained to me 1) how straight marriage needs protection and if it does why from gays and not the heterosexuals who abuse it, and 2) how, even if we assume a heterosexual family is a better environment for raising a child, that scuttling a gay couple's dreams is going to make a heterosexual marriage spring up to replace them like tulips in April)
--into nothing more than an effort to smear supporters and distract American voters from what is really going on with their national security, finances, and environment. I've never felt less connected to my government or optimistic about its intentions and motivations. I wonder what it feels like to live in a place like Haiti where opportunities are limited but where in a matter of days dissatisfaction with government boiled over into the streets and individuals could see their own actions shaping their leadership.
It would be unfortunate if the right manages to make this equal rights debate--
(debate about what I'm still not sure--no one has ever explained to me 1) how straight marriage needs protection and if it does why from gays and not the heterosexuals who abuse it, and 2) how, even if we assume a heterosexual family is a better environment for raising a child, that scuttling a gay couple's dreams is going to make a heterosexual marriage spring up to replace them like tulips in April)
--into nothing more than an effort to smear supporters and distract American voters from what is really going on with their national security, finances, and environment. I've never felt less connected to my government or optimistic about its intentions and motivations. I wonder what it feels like to live in a place like Haiti where opportunities are limited but where in a matter of days dissatisfaction with government boiled over into the streets and individuals could see their own actions shaping their leadership.
--Ian
-
benzocaine
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:20 pm
- Location: St. Thomas
An expose on closeted right wingers, while crude, would be in line with history (see McCarthyite Roy Cohn) and with research (including a study showing that self professed heterosexual men who exhibited higher levels of arousal to gay images endorsed more anti-gay philosophies).
There is quite a lot of evidence that Hitler was gay, and that by having many killed he would cover up his past...
"Shortly after his move, August Kubizek, a young man from his hometown, joined him and they lived together for four months. Intensely jealous, Hitler wrote Kubizek, "I cannot endure it when you consort and converse with other young people." and "Machtan dug out clear evidence of Hitler's homosexual activities during this period, such as his five months at a men's hostel known as "a hub of homosexual activity."
The Discover Channel recently did a TV doccumentary about Hitler and talked about Hitlers affairs in the trenches as well.
