NationStates Jolt Archive

I felt inspired to start a thread about religious morality & its consequences in a modern secular humanist society. No America, I don't mean you. I'm talking about societies like Britain, Sweden & such. Societies based on curiosity, critical thinking, pedagogy & such. Perhaps that can be said to be true for the US as well, but it isn't the topic of this thread.

Religious morality vs. rational morality is.

I'm not claiming all religious people are amoral or wrong. I'm not claiming all religious people are monotheistic, have scripture, believe in any deities, or belong to any particular religion. Overkill by generalisation is irrelevant to the subject of this thread & doesn't interest me in the slightest. I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings either, though that's probably unavoidable. I'm confident you're fully able to resort to the high art of namecalling if you feel trot on.

*Takes a deep breath* OK, that has to be enough disclaimering for any one thread. On to the meat of it then.

I have a problem. My problem is that while I live in an age & society of reason, not all of my fellow citizens do. It isn't my personal problem, but I'm a part of this society just like they are, so I am responsible for their wellbeing to some degree.

The people having difficulties, are religious. Now, in some naive way, I don't think that could possibly be an issue. Religion is a private matter, right?
Or is it?
Every year, a bunch of kids are enrolled in educations parallel to the public educations. They learn to do read & write & so on. A generation ago, there was a major reformation of the education system, so even private institutions have to fill some minimum criteria.

For example, people have to learn how to form a sentence properly, so Jewish kids in religious schools won't just rehearse the OT nowadays. They'll fill in the blanks in sentences like "____ are God's chosen people" or "____ are definitly not God's chosen people". The same is true for other religions' religious schools.

What am I getting at? Well. Religious morality is by & large not very good for human beings. I'm not saying it's wrong or bad for [insert name of deity], but it isn't good for people. Religious morality is regressive. It doesn't allow people to ask about everything, and it doesn't allow people to work & live with eachother.

I'm not saying this is a major problem for secular humanist societies. It isn't. There aren't enough orthodox religious people around to affect society much, and the ones that are, can't agree on anything.

I am, however, saying that this is an obstacle for themselves. They aren't content to live in societies that don't mirror their religious morality. Not that they take matters into their own hands & run around burning stray husbands or anything of the sort, but they can't come to terms with living in societies that won't do it for them.

On the face of it, even this wouldn't be a problem, but in practice, it is. Not that they don't burn people, but that they feel we all should, and almost feel we need to burn for failing to do it. The mentality puts them in conflict with the rest of society.
They can't get jobs. Nobody wants to hire someone who needs special attention & firmly believes both employer & coworkers are degenerate monsters. Just as bad, they're near-unable to participate in the primary areas that drive our societies. They refuse to be part of scientific development, and even if they weren't opposed to the way we govern our societies, they'd be too small & devided to accomplish anything.

They end up as small, isolated "Us vs. Them" groups that no one can relate to, funded by cheritable forigners, or as part of a growing sub-working class supported by the welfare state. It's like modern-day lepers.

What the hell kind of life is that? Is this really the best our societies have to offer misfit minorities? Is it possible to do something to make them drop their prejudice against the rest of scociety (and ours against them), or is religious morality simply incompatible with a secular humanist society?

I have no answers. Do you?

NB: Just to avoid confusion & accusations of whatever, I'm a humanist myself, and have nothing but contempt for religious morality. If this post is full of prejudice, then that's the explanation.

What is rational morality?

I have a problem. My problem is that while I live in an age & society of reason, not all of my fellow citizens do. It isn't my personal problem, but I'm a part of this society just like they are, so I am responsible for their wellbeing to some degree.

Excellent place to start. I have one question: outside of a Western Judaeo-Christian morality, or an Islamic morality, or a Hindu morality, why should you care about society at all? The only secular morality I know of in history that achieved unity and essential peace was in Imperial China, and there it was a system that though more or less secular had a lot of its morality based in (religious) traditions.

The people having difficulties, are religious. Now, in some naive way, I don't think that could possibly be an issue. Religion is a private matter, right?
Or is it?

Most religions will say that it's not, anyway. I vote the way I vote because of what I believe; I choose my friends the way I choose my friends because of the way I believe; I don't go out and get wasted and rape some girl, because of what I believe. Because I think I'm right - or, more precisely, the Church/Bible is right - I make some sort of an effort to live a "decent" life as witness of that fact.

What am I getting at? Well. Religious morality is by & large not very good for human beings. I'm not saying it's wrong or bad for [insert name of deity], but it isn't good for people. Religious morality is regressive. It doesn't allow people to ask about everything, and it doesn't allow people to work & live with eachother.

Allowing your point for a minute, what sort of morality do you propose, then? A strictly scientific one? "Murder is wrong, because it kills people, but I guess we have to leave gay people alone, as long as we make sure they do have the right number of kids to make sure the species survives... we can't let religious prejudice influence policy, but..."?

You can't have morality without assuming something, whether it's "God says..." or "The greater good for the greatest number," or "From each according to his ability..." or "The fittest will survive". And as soon as you assume something, if you're human you wonder vaguely where that assumption came from. The only morality that prevents recurssive questioning of its roots is if you just say, "God says." Because if God says, then it darn well better be done that way.

As for not permitting people to ask questions... well, about what? No, it doesn't let people say, "Why is x wrong?" X is just wrong. But most religions (not religious wackos) are not opposed to scientific (or any other form, except maybe the occult) enquiry.

I am, however, saying that this is an obstacle for themselves. They aren't content to live in societies that don't mirror their religious morality. Not that they take matters into their own hands & run around burning stray husbands or anything of the sort, but they can't come to terms with living in societies that won't do it for them.

Now you're contradicting yourself. If we all just "came to terms" with society, there wouldn't be any progress, any debate, anything. If you don't actually believe something, you won't do anything about it.

They can't get jobs. Nobody wants to hire someone who needs special attention & firmly believes both employer & coworkers are degenerate monsters. Just as bad, they're near-unable to participate in the primary areas that drive our societies. They refuse to be part of scientific development, and even if they weren't opposed to the way we govern our societies, they'd be too small & devided to accomplish anything.

If you actually have evidence that suggests that (pick a religious group) has difficulty finding jobs, how about you show it? If you have evidence to show that no (x religious group) are scientists, why don't you post it? If you have evidence that suggests (some religious group) is opposed to our form of government, how about you link it?

What the hell kind of life is that? Is this really the best our societies have to offer misfit minorities? Is it possible to do something to make them drop their prejudice against the rest of scociety (and ours against them), or is religious morality simply incompatible with a secular humanist society?

This reminds me of the logic used about why we shouldn't let blacks (or Chinese, or Irish, or Russians, or whatever) reside in the US freely. But now we call that racism. Cultures differ. What do you do about cultures - a lot of them in the Middle East - held together by religion? Your logic is one of the reasons that people who are members of other religions see the secular world as out to get them.

And, as far as it goes, hell yes religious morality is inconsistent with a secular society. But it's inconsistent in a "how about we try to change this" way, not a "you all are freaks and losers" way. I'm not talking about the lunatic fringe groups of all religions (and all philosophies, humanism among them). I'm talking about your average religious person who's just as concerned as you are about the state of the world, and wants to make it better - he just has a different idea of what it should look like, and how to go about it.

We play by our rules, they play by theirs. If people want to hold that certain methods of morality are better suited to communal governing then so be it; they're entirely welcome to go off and form separate communities that adhere to and uphold their own laws. But unless you acknowledge our authorities, you have no right to take advantage of our society. Communal living involves both privilege and responsibility, and one must accept the responsibilities laid down by the group as a whole in order to be fairly granted the privileges.

The only morality that prevents recurssive questioning of its roots is if you just say, "God says." Because if God says, then it darn well better be done that way.
Wait, what? "God Says" is the only terminal form of recursive questioning now?

Recursive questioning is no bad thing when we can show that the recursion must at some point terminate. "God Says" is precisely that result that leads to an infinite recursion of questioning, no matter how you look at it.

"Extended Egotism" is a lesser known train of moral thought that is essentially a compromise between rationalism and authoritive ideas. One way of looking at it is essentially not "what is God telling me to do" but rather "if I were in God's position, what would I want me to do?" It's the idea of identifying or even personifying the greater system (from base principles of interaction, if necessary; a notion that most authoritarian methods of morality don't even bother trying to deal with) and deducing what is the best course of action based on what would most benefit that system as a whole.

I felt inspired to start a thread about religious morality & its consequences in a modern secular humanist society. No America, I don't mean you. I'm talking about societies like Britain, Sweden & such. Societies based on curiosity, critical thinking, pedagogy & such. Perhaps that can be said to be true for the US as well, but it isn't the topic of this thread.
er... western values are built upon religious morals....
Religious morality vs. rational morality is.

I'm not claiming all religious people are amoral or wrong. I'm not claiming all religious people are monotheistic, have scripture, believe in any deities, or belong to any particular religion. Overkill by generalisation is irrelevant to the subject of this thread & doesn't interest me in the slightest. I don't intend to hurt anyone's feelings either, though that's probably unavoidable. I'm confident you're fully able to resort to the high art of namecalling if you feel trot on.
by making a clear distinction between religious morality and rational morality you are already 'name-calling' religious people as irrational, however unintended *sigh*
I have a problem. My problem is that while I live in an age & society of reason, not all of my fellow citizens do.
you've done it again *sigh*
It isn't my personal problem, but I'm a part of this society just like they are, so I am responsible for their wellbeing to some degree.
worry about yourself first and work on how you relate to other people (including those who are religious)...
The people having difficulties, are religious. Now, in some naive way, I don't think that could possibly be an issue. Religion is a private matter, right?
so now the people having difficulties are all religious? i thought you had said "Overkill by generalisation is irrelevant to the subject of this thread".
Or is it?
yes, it's a private matter (or so it should be, just like being non-religious).
Every year, a bunch of kids are enrolled in educations parallel to the public educations. They learn to do read & write & so on. A generation ago, there was a major reformation of the education system, so even private institutions have to fill some minimum criteria. For example, people have to learn how to form a sentence properly, so Jewish kids in religious schools won't just rehearse the OT nowadays. They'll fill in the blanks in sentences like "____ are God's chosen people" or "____ are definitly not God's chosen people". The same is true for other religions' religious schools.
is this true or are you inventing this sentence to illustrate your prejudices?
What am I getting at? Well. Religious morality is by & large not very good for human beings.
sorry? do you realise all the foundations of rational morality (whatever that is), like human rights, began with religious morality?
I'm not saying it's wrong or bad for [insert name of deity], but it isn't good for people. Religious morality is regressive. It doesn't allow people to ask about everything, and it doesn't allow people to work & live with eachother.
you are talking out of ignorance and making generalisations again.
I'm not saying this is a major problem for secular humanist societies. It isn't. There aren't enough orthodox religious people around to affect society much, and the ones that are, can't agree on anything.
and atheists agree on everything???
I am, however, saying that this is an obstacle for themselves. They aren't content to live in societies that don't mirror their religious morality. Not that they take matters into their own hands & run around burning stray husbands or anything of the sort, but they can't come to terms with living in societies that won't do it for them.
what they can't come to terms with is with living in a world were morality is eroding by the year...
On the face of it, even this wouldn't be a problem, but in practice, it is. Not that they don't burn people, but that they feel we all should, and almost feel we need to burn for failing to do it. The mentality puts them in conflict with the rest of society.
oh please.... again, you are talking out of ignorance and making generalisations again.
They can't get jobs.
really? so all religious people are unemployed? show me the statistics please...
Nobody wants to hire someone who needs special attention & firmly believes both employer & coworkers are degenerate monsters. Just as bad, they're near-unable to participate in the primary areas that drive our societies.
what about religious charities like christian aid? listen to yourself....
They refuse to be part of scientific development, and even if they weren't opposed to the way we govern our societies, they'd be too small & devided to accomplish anything.
do you realise plenty of scientists are religious?
They end up as small, isolated "Us vs. Them" groups that no one can relate to, funded by cheritable forigners, or as part of a growing sub-working class supported by the welfare state. It's like modern-day lepers.
modern day lepers?? back to name-calling aren't we?
What the hell kind of life is that? Is this really the best our societies have to offer misfit minorities? Is it possible to do something to make them drop their prejudice against the rest of scociety (and ours against them), or is religious morality simply incompatible with a secular humanist society?
point me to a humanist society that had no religious influence in their past history please...
I have no answers. Do you?
no, but i somehow feel i've got more answers as to how to deal with my fellow human beings than you, thanks to Jesus, Confucious and others... for a start, i don't make generalisations as easily as you do or call lepers to people i don't agree with...
NB: Just to avoid confusion & accusations of whatever, I'm a humanist myself, and have nothing but contempt for religious morality. If this post is full of prejudice, then that's the explanation.
a humanist cannot be as full of prejudice as you are... you obviously can't make a distinction between religious people and religious fundamentalists... you should rethink about what you just said and rewrite the whole lot... maybe try reading the gospel of Thomas or some Tao scriptures before...

Wait, what? "God Says" is the only terminal form of recursive questioning now?

Recursive questioning is no bad thing when we can show that the recursion must at some point terminate. "God Says" is precisely that result that leads to an infinite recursion of questioning, no matter how you look at it.

I think I got my terms mixed up, and now I'm confused. What I was trying to say is, I don't see why a society that says, "Here are your base rules, work within them" is really a bad thing.

"Extended Egotism" is a lesser known train of moral thought that is essentially a compromise between rationalism and authoritive ideas. One way of looking at it is essentially not "what is God telling me to do" but rather "if I were in God's position, what would I want me to do?" It's the idea of identifying or even personifying the greater system (from base principles of interaction, if necessary; a notion that most authoritarian methods of morality don't even bother trying to deal with) and deducing what is the best course of action based on what would most benefit that system as a whole.

It's also known as "I like to be right." :D Which is to say, I don't see the value of advocating that sort of system, but I guess it might theoretically work, if everybody actually thought that way.

*snip NB: Just to avoid confusion & accusations of whatever, I'm a humanist myself, and have nothing but contempt for religious morality. If this post is full of prejudice, then that's the explanation.*snip


I would say so, as you are advocating destroying religious freedom in the name of 'I know what is good for them more than they do'.

It's also known as "I like to be right." :D Which is to say, I don't see the value of advocating that sort of system, but I guess it might theoretically work, if everybody actually thought that way.
Koon: Goddamn it Kamsaki, not everyone believes what you believe!
Kamsaki: My beliefs do not require them to.

Obvious reference there, but cookies to whoever gets it nonetheless. =)

This is all about how I respond as a member of society. Morality is entirely that; it is about adjusting the role of the individual to suit its place in the wider picture. In my world view, it just so happens that the approach to morality that I take is closer linked to its purpose than others.

As long as it fulfils that purpose, society is that much better for it. The number of people who adhere specifically to it is not a designation of its "success" or whether or not it "works"; it is simply about whether or not it incites me to engage constructively with those around me, and it does.

Koon: Goddamn it Kamsaki, not everyone believes what you believe!
Kamsaki: My beliefs do not require them to.

Obvious reference there, but cookies to whoever gets it nonetheless. =)

This is all about how I respond as a member of society. Morality is entirely that; it is about adjusting the role of the individual to suit its place in the wider picture. In my world view, it just so happens that the approach to morality that I take is closer linked to its purpose than others.

As long as it fulfils that purpose, society is that much better for it. The number of people who adhere specifically to it is not a designation of its "success" or whether or not it "works"; it is simply about whether or not it incites me to engage constructively with those around me, and it does.

lol! I'm guessing you're a fan of Ben Franklin? He had a very similar idea of personal morality.

So, would you say religion does or does not have a beneficial effect on the morality of society (just looking for your opinion out of curiosity)?

I aws having a similar discussoin with somebody a few weeks ago, he was religious and couldn't seem to understnad why I thought killing someone was wrong.

He insisted that there must be some sort of belief for me not to kill someone If I was certain I could get away with it, Karma maybe.

He just didn't understand empathy. I think that is quite sad.


you can find the discussion here...you have to read upwards on that site

http://www.ubersite.com/m/89109#2022531

lol! I'm guessing you're a fan of Ben Franklin? He had a very similar idea of personal morality.

So, would you say religion does or does not have a beneficial effect on the morality of society (just looking for your opinion out of curiosity)?
Religion itself classifies as an aspect of a subgroup of society. It's a political statement of allegiance, first and foremost. One can listen to the ideas of the Prophets, Muhammed, Jesus, Buddha, the Dalai Lama or even L Ron Freakin' Hubbard and put them all into practice, but to actually belong to a religion involves a specific social separation of one's self from all other possibilities. I generally do not approve.

Theism or spirituality in the wider sense, however, can be entirely helpful if properly directed. I'm all for exploration of alternative ways of looking at the world, and the notion of God has some useful aspects. Honestly, I think the ideas underlying Hinduism in particular show great promise on a personal level as a perfect combination of appreciating both the world around us and of valuing our own existence within it, resulting in a healthy way of looking at how I personally can lead my life. It's just a shame all of these organisations have been built up around them. Too many religions themselves act like selfish, egotistical children - always wanting more without care for what it takes and what it leaves behind and even going so far as to villianise those that aren't themselves. When the organisation becomes the key focus, the idea has become worthless and should probably be quietly disposed of. Which, incidentally, is why I want to raze Scientology to the ground, but that's no secret.

Does that satisfy your curiosity? :D

Excellent place to startRational morality: using reason to determine what appears to be best for us as collectives of individuals. That means: no stoning children for stealing appels. It isn't good for the children in any way we can determine.

Obviously I have a problem with religious morality, because it isn't based on rational thought. Stoning kids may be great according to god, but since we can't be sure god exists, killing people on the odd chance that it does, seems a bit extreme. Considering that other gods, that might also exist, would condemn child-stoning, it ceased to be an extreme act based on wishful thinking & becomes a downright absurd one.

We can't determine anything about religion, but we can determine what's good for us.

Anyway, in both the UK & the scandinavian countries, unemployment is much higher among orthodox religious people, than among everyone else. Check for yourself. The orthodox frige groups complain about it on a regular basis.
Though I can't remember the numbers, there's much lower voter turnout among the orthodox ones, than among the rest of us.
Their average incomes are lower in those countries. Their general health is worse..

My point wasn't that they should roll over & be my clones. I don't care what or why they believe, as long as they're not hurting anyone. I don't care what you believe either, though you don't exactly give the impression of belonging to one of the orthodox fringe groups.

My point was that they are having trouble with secular humanist societies. The trouble being their shitty wages, bad educations, lack of representatives & so on. I'm sorry for you, if you think that makes me some little fascist militant, but I don't actually care. I'm not asking how we can help them become me, I'm asking how we can help them participate equally in the societies they're supposed to be part of.
It's too bad you think I want to isolate them. I don't. They're already isolated & worse off for it, by the looks of things. I was asking what can be done to help them, not help me.

And as I tried to make clear in the OP, I haven't the slightest idea. That's WHY I asked.

If you think I'm wrong about the causes of the situation, then enlighten me. I'm human & absolutely fallible. It does, however, not change the reality of the situation, just as it doesn't change that what I hear most of these orthodox groups offer as explanation, is religious morality vs. rational morality.

The causes probably need to be understood to address the situation, and it's possible I don't understand the causes. Regardless, the problem exists.

Finally: it isn't a personal problem for me. Nothing about my situation is changed regardless of what happens to these people. I just share a society with them, so I of course want to see them prosper like I do. I see no reason they shouldn't.

EDIT: IF I just concede to being a prick, an anti-religious wanker & so on, can we perhaps get back to the point, however poorly I've made it?

Rational morality: using reason to determine what appears to be best for us as collectives of individuals. That means: no stoning children for stealing appels. It isn't good for the children in any way we can determine.

How old are you?

How old are you?
The innocence of childhood brings forth perspectives that the ennui of maturity has unduly thrown aside.

The innocence of childhood brings forth perspectives that the ennui of maturity has unduly thrown aside.

Similization doesn't like anyone telling him what to do. He feels that he should be able to do whatever he wants without worrying about the consequences.

Free development for all! Workers of the world, unite!

Similization doesn't like anyone telling him what to do.

And you hate that no one gives a hoot that you in the name of your imaginary friend keep telling people what to do.

Every year, a bunch of kids are enrolled in educations parallel to the public educations. They learn to do read & write & so on. A generation ago, there was a major reformation of the education system, so even private institutions have to fill some minimum criteria.

And government schools are always unbiased. They don't teach students to "rationally" conclude that they should give up more and more of their sacred rights in exchange for a government benefit check.

And government schools are always unbiased. They don't teach students to "rationally" conclude that they should give up more and more of their sacred rights in exchange for a government benefit check.
And this means what to whom?

Rational morality: using reason to determine what appears to be best for us as collectives of individuals. That means: no stoning children for stealing appels. It isn't good for the children in any way we can determine.

Thanks for the simple definition, helps a lot. :)

Obviously I have a problem with religious morality, because it isn't based on rational thought. Stoning kids may be great according to god, but since we can't be sure god exists, killing people on the odd chance that it does, seems a bit extreme. Considering that other gods, that might also exist, would condemn child-stoning, it ceased to be an extreme act based on wishful thinking & becomes a downright absurd one.

We can't determine anything about religion, but we can determine what's good for us.

How do we determine what's good for us? This is the major hang-up of non-religious morality. We have to decide that something is our highest good: but do we make it personal happiness, or the comfort of society, or the survival of humanity, or what? Any of these can and have been argued rationally as the highest good, going way back (Plato said the good society is the highest goal, Aristotle said it was the good life where each man is comfortable in doing good, etc...)

Anyway, in both the UK & the scandinavian countries, unemployment is much higher among orthodox religious people, than among everyone else. Check for yourself. The orthodox frige groups complain about it on a regular basis. Though I can't remember the numbers, there's much lower voter turnout among the orthodox ones, than among the rest of us.
Their average incomes are lower in those countries. Their general health is worse.

...

My point was that they are having trouble with secular humanist societies. The trouble being their shitty wages, bad educations, lack of representatives & so on. I'm sorry for you, if you think that makes me some little fascist militant, but I don't actually care. I'm not asking how we can help them become me, I'm asking how we can help them participate equally in the societies they're supposed to be part of.

Ah, that's fairly disturbing. I'd not heard of that case before, and I have no diea if something similar is true in the US. though I suspect not. Also, how exactly are you defining "orthodox"? Fringe groups have never gotten along well with the status quo, whether in the so-called "Christendom" of Medieval Europe or the hard-headed materialist society of the Industrial Revolution. On the other hand, I consider myself a fairly "orthodox" Christian, in that I believe the generic Christian doctrines.

It's too bad you think I want to isolate them. I don't. They're already isolated & worse off for it, by the looks of things. I was asking what can be done to help them, not help me.

And as I tried to make clear in the OP, I haven't the slightest idea. That's WHY I asked.

Ok... I'm sorry, I think I read you wrong. For some reason I was gathering that you were saying "these people are using their religion to get themselves in trouble, therefore religion is bad", which it seems is not your main point.

If you think I'm wrong about the causes of the situation, then enlighten me. I'm human & absolutely fallible. It does, however, not change the reality of the situation, just as it doesn't change that what I hear most of these orthodox groups offer as explanation, is religious morality vs. rational morality.

Well, see, one of the things I was trying to say is that I don't think you can establish a successful morality to guide a society on humanist/secular terms alone. So, I would say one of the causes of the situation is trying to establish a completely secular society. On the other hand, I have no proof either, so unless I spend three years doing insane amounts of research in order to construct what will at best be a stiull-unprovableable social conjecture, I'm thinking looking at the causes won't get us very far.

EDIT: IF I just concede to being a prick, an anti-religious wanker & so on, can we perhaps get back to the point, however poorly I've made it?

Well, since you would essentially be admitting to being human, I don't think it would make much diff. ;) I'm a bit of a prick myself.

-----

(Copying from above:)

...I'm asking how we can help them participate equally in the societies they're supposed to be part of.

I'm afraid I don't have any more ideas than you do. I personally suspect the people involved of willfully separating themselves from what they see as evil, or (the next most likely) they've been rejected by neighbors etc, probably unconsciously, for being religious wackos.

For this reason, it seems to me that even a secular society has to do one of two things: recognize the religious impulse of humanity, or outlaw it. In the one case, it can be accepted as a normal - if delusional - part of existence; in the other, trial by fire will rapidly prove whether or not their religion actually does anything for the outcasts. If history follows its normal pattern, and it doesn't, then the religion will die out; if people stick to the religion though, it will spread, and you'll suddenly have a less then secular society.

Practically, of course, if you know somebody you consider an orthodox religious weirdo, you could invite him or her over for dinner or something. I dunno.

Anyway, this is how these threads seem to go:

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/7623/farktopolis060015qv.gif

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/8941/farktopolis060028lh.gif

http://img74.imageshack.us/img74/6857/farktopolis060037pi.gif

It's farkish, but very applicable nevertheless.

Rational morality: using reason to determine what appears to be best for us as collectives of individuals. That means: no stoning children for stealing appels. It isn't good for the children in any way we can determine.

How do we use rationality to determine what is best for us as collectives of individuals? Why should our morality be geared towards collectives of individuals?

And you hate that no one gives a hoot that you in the name of your imaginary friend keep telling people what to do.

And what might be your age?

I was leaning more towards the demands of his parents, but the great Creator and Preserver of the universe has His own demands as well. I'm quite confident that's the high expectations demanded by God are real reason for the passionate hatred and rebellion against the moral law. I strongly doubt that many of you hold advanced degrees in the science that you have elevated from a highly worthy and moral pursuit of knowledge into a false faith of its own.

Our holy Church established the first universities throughout Europe during the High Middle Ages to further the pursuit of truth through logic and reason, while realizing simultaneously that perfect truth is unattainable by reason alone. Modern "free" government education is no longer about the quest for truth, but for the purposes of maximizing personal pleasure without regard for right and wrong. With the idea that individuals can no longer control their animal instincts, it gives that very same "generous" government the very wedge it needs to step in and take away more and more of our liberties. I'm not talking about false liberties like the right to free condoms and free healthcare, but real liberties, like the right to life, liberty and property.

The various members of this Forum attack Christian schools because they teach students that moral uprightness and righteousness are virtues, without realizing that perhaps their "free" government school propagates its own [false] truths, which they have accepted lock, stock and barrel under the guise that these so-called truths were discovered by rational inquiry.

If we forget that God, who gave us life, also gave us liberty (modified Jefferson), individually and inalienably, we will lose the very foundation of our freedom. Our sacred rights are not up for majority vote, they exist as truth inviolate, guaranteed by God to each of us as an expression of His enduring love. It is only after this realization that we may voluntarily yield the protection of these rights to government. It is not the government or the majority yielding rights to us. We always retain the right to reclaim for ourselves the protection of our individual rights when the government acts in a manner contrary to their preservation.

I'm not advocating any particular expression of belief, but we must always remember, honor and give thanks to the One who allowed us to experience the life with which we are so very blessed. Blessed be God in the hearts of his People, now and in perpetuity.

*snip


Whoa...I thought you were a stone cold anti-religion atheist considering your posts in response to Wyvern knights in a certain thread on Gay rights, I can't remember which, as there are ten thousand of them. So either you are mocking Christians now, or someone hijacked your acount then (or now). Don't take this as offensive, I am just surprised.

Whoa...I thought you were a stone cold anti-religion atheist considering your posts in response to Wyvern knights in a certain thread on Gay rights, I can't remember which, as there are ten thousand of them. So either you are mocking Christians now, or someone hijacked your acount then (or now). Don't take this as offensive, I am just surprised.

Was there anybody in that thread who wasn't mocking Wyvern Knights?

Thats the biggest assumption I have ever heard, I go to a catholic school and they teach evolution and the big bang as if it was a fact. They do not intervine anyway in the teachings at all.

I hate to break it too you but in Britian, only a very few religious people oppose most science. In fact, there are loads and loads of Christian scientists.

And what might be your age?
--a vertical metre of nonsense ensues---

My age be irrelevant.

Rational morality: using reason to determine what appears to be best for us as collectives of individuals. That means: no stoning children for stealing appels. It isn't good for the children in any way we can determine.
where does that happen, by the way, or are you resorting to false slander?... in any case, so now all religious people condone stoning children for stealing apples *sigh*
Obviously I have a problem with religious morality, because it isn't based on rational thought.
if religious morality isn't based on rational thought, does that mean monkeys can be religious?

should i remind you again, since you have chosen to ignore my previous post, that rational morality grew out of religious morality?
Stoning kids may be great according to god, but since we can't be sure god exists, killing people on the odd chance that it does, seems a bit extreme.
you've done it again... this is really becoming ridiculous...
Considering that other gods, that might also exist, would condemn child-stoning, it ceased to be an extreme act based on wishful thinking & becomes a downright absurd one.
and again...
We can't determine anything about religion, but we can determine what's good for us.
you really don't make much sense...
Anyway, in both the UK & the scandinavian countries, unemployment is much higher among orthodox religious people, than among everyone else. Check for yourself. The orthodox frige groups complain about it on a regular basis.
so one minute is "orthodox religious" and the next minute is "orthodox fringe groups" which one is it? also, you're making the argument so you have to provide with the statistics, not us...
Though I can't remember the numbers, there's much lower voter turnout among the orthodox ones, than among the rest of us.
source please...
Their average incomes are lower in those countries. Their general health is worse..
source please...
My point wasn't that they should roll over & be my clones. I don't care what or why they believe, as long as they're not hurting anyone. I don't care what you believe either, though you don't exactly give the impression of belonging to one of the orthodox fringe groups.
can you stop making crude generalisations? please?
My point was that they are having trouble with secular humanist societies. The trouble being their shitty wages, bad educations, lack of representatives & so on.
source please....
I'm sorry for you, if you think that makes me some little fascist militant, but I don't actually care. I'm not asking how we can help them become me, I'm asking how we can help them participate equally in the societies they're supposed to be part of.
*sigh*
It's too bad you think I want to isolate them. I don't. They're already isolated & worse off for it, by the looks of things. I was asking what can be done to help them, not help me. And as I tried to make clear in the OP, I haven't the slightest idea. That's WHY I asked.
i'm starting to feel you're the one who needs help... have you considered talking to a psychologist about these feelings? i'm not being sarcastic...
If you think I'm wrong about the causes of the situation, then enlighten me. I'm human & absolutely fallible. It does, however, not change the reality of the situation, just as it doesn't change that what I hear most of these orthodox groups offer as explanation, is religious morality vs. rational morality.
my dear similization, while i don't particularly conform to orthodoxy (i don't attend to church, etc), i know people who do. in fact, they feel that it is a way to commune and meet. every sunday, thousands of people get together under one roof to ear words of peace and love... they don't need your help... how often do you gather with large numbers of your fellow citizens, to hear words of peace, love and respect for you fellow human beings?
The causes probably need to be understood to address the situation, and it's possible I don't understand the causes. Regardless, the problem exists.
the problem is mainly in your head...
Finally: it isn't a personal problem for me. Nothing about my situation is changed regardless of what happens to these people. I just share a society with them, so I of course want to see them prosper like I do. I see no reason they shouldn't.
then stop worrying about them. for as long as they don't interfere with your life and you with theirs, you have no reason to worry about.
EDIT: IF I just concede to being a prick, an anti-religious wanker & so on, can we perhaps get back to the point, however poorly I've made it?
i don't think you are a wanker, just very ignorant of what faith means to a lot of people. i actually wish i had more of it...

I aws having a similar discussoin with somebody a few weeks ago, he was religious and couldn't seem to understnad why I thought killing someone was wrong.

He insisted that there must be some sort of belief for me not to kill someone If I was certain I could get away with it, Karma maybe.

He just didn't understand empathy. I think that is quite sad.


you can find the discussion here...you have to read upwards on that site

http://www.ubersite.com/m/89109#2022531
i believe you just said the magic word; "empathy". some people reach it through rational thought (like i did actually). i was a devout atheist until about a year ago but i've always been very empathic. as i felt more and more that empathy and respect in the world were vanishing from all levels of society, i felt more and more isolated.

one day i happened to see a the documentary on the gospel of Judas and became fascinated with a view on christianity and Jesus that i had never heard about. i then read the gospel of Thomas, a private dialogue between Jesus and the apostles that had been hidden from our eyes from centuries, and I suddenly identified myself with that Jesus. everything he said was close to my feelings about the world, even about "organised religion" (according to this gospel, Jesus was against it)... that was when i became agnostic...

anyway, i praise you, because you obviously understand the most basic value that "organised religion" often fails to teach... i'm hopeful that, if God does exist (and i wish i knew) He will have a little place in Heaven for you... when i was an atheist, i used to say that i had faith that God would also have a little place for me, based on my empathic principles, even if it was only a tiny studio flat... i hope i still deserve it...

And what might be your age?

I was leaning more towards the demands of his parents, but the great Creator and Preserver of the universe has His own demands as well. I'm quite confident that's the high expectations demanded by God are real reason for the passionate hatred and rebellion against the moral law. I strongly doubt that many of you hold advanced degrees in the science that you have elevated from a highly worthy and moral pursuit of knowledge into a false faith of its own.

Our holy Church established the first universities throughout Europe during the High Middle Ages to further the pursuit of truth through logic and reason, while realizing simultaneously that perfect truth is unattainable by reason alone. Modern "free" government education is no longer about the quest for truth, but for the purposes of maximizing personal pleasure without regard for right and wrong. With the idea that individuals can no longer control their animal instincts, it gives that very same "generous" government the very wedge it needs to step in and take away more and more of our liberties. I'm not talking about false liberties like the right to free condoms and free healthcare, but real liberties, like the right to life, liberty and property.

The various members of this Forum attack Christian schools because they teach students that moral uprightness and righteousness are virtues, without realizing that perhaps their "free" government school propagates its own [false] truths, which they have accepted lock, stock and barrel under the guise that these so-called truths were discovered by rational inquiry.

If we forget that God, who gave us life, also gave us liberty (modified Jefferson), individually and inalienably, we will lose the very foundation of our freedom. Our sacred rights are not up for majority vote, they exist as truth inviolate, guaranteed by God to each of us as an expression of His enduring love. It is only after this realization that we may voluntarily yield the protection of these rights to government. It is not the government or the majority yielding rights to us. We always retain the right to reclaim for ourselves the protection of our individual rights when the government acts in a manner contrary to their preservation.

I'm not advocating any particular expression of belief, but we must always remember, honor and give thanks to the One who allowed us to experience the life with which we are so very blessed. Blessed be God in the hearts of his People, now and in perpetuity.

While I'm impressed by your eloquence, I'm not entirely sure from your post whether you understand what a right is in the first place. Rights certainly are not justified by God's existence, and they would certainly exist whether or not God exists or no. Moreover, I can't begin to parse out what you mean by the claim that the government is granting us our rights rather than the reverse. It sounds like a near-incoherent mishmash of Thomism and libertarianism, which is a silly amalgation.

In the first place, we do not justify our rights on the nature of God or God's existence; they exist on their own as plain fact. A government that wants to maintain itself had better not threaten my life unneccessarily not because it might, however dubiously, incur God's wrath, but because I and my fellow citizens will revoke its right to existence if it does. Whether or not God made me, I will always fight, even to the death, to protect my life, and protect the means to securing that life. This is the underlying justification for the right to life, liberty, and property: human nature. Many governments have flouted someone's version of God's will, but none have long lasted after crossing and violating the human nature of their subjects.

Having established where rights originate, a refresher on the nature of he political state seems in order, as that might clarify what might be meant by the phrase "It is not the government or the majority yielding rights to us." You see, political states form when rational people get together and form a compact. The nature of this compact is hardly one-sided; it is a necessity for there to be a state that men agree to abridge certain of their liberties to accomodate it. Citizens may agree, for instance, to place certain kinds of laws up for popular vote to which all are bound, even those who lost. They do this because 1) there are practical benefits for the existence of the state, and 2) if there were no absolutely binding means of establishing law and invoking respect for the rule of law, there is no state, and hence no benefit. In effect, this means that men in the state agree that their right to life, liberty, and property are not unconditional and absolute, but in exchange for this they recieve benefits, such as state protection of property and contracts, that would not be secure in the state of nature. Herein I think lies your mistake: most of the time I hear phrases like "It is not the government or the majority yielding rights to us", it is spoken my men deeply troubled by a law passed in a lawful manner. While it is perfectly good to disagree about a potential law, however, the phrase assumes, wrongly, that because you disagree with a law that you do not have to abide by it, because there is some deeper standard of law yet to be met. This is a dangerous and wrong sentiment, not to mention one extremely ill-conducive to the existence of the state. If you participated in the manner in which the state makes its laws, then you have effectively agreed to live by those laws whether you win or lose. If the laws are not fairly passed, or if the people as a collective decide that the law is intolerable, then you have some justification for your claims; in any other case, you have bound yourself by contract by participating in the formation of the law to abide by it; if you cannot, then you can find the border on your own.

Thanks for the simple definition, helps a lot. :)You're welcome.How do we determine what's good for us?Well, in societies like the ones you'll find in northern Europe, the formula is something like "The right to self determination of the individual, as long as it isn't directly detrimental to society". My personal recipe doesn't involve the society bit, but that's me.
These societies generally have non-partisan bodies of experts from various fields, whose job it is to formulate exactly where the lines are drawn. It works relatively well. It's illegal to smash AT&T after hours for some reason, and some of the societies still don't recognise homosexuals as real humans.Ah, that's fairly disturbing. I'd not heard of that case before, and I have no diea if something similar is true in the US. though I suspect not. Also, how exactly are you defining "orthodox"? Fringe groups have never gotten along well with the status quo, whether in the so-called "Christendom" of Medieval Europe or the hard-headed materialist society of the Industrial Revolution. On the other hand, I consider myself a fairly "orthodox" Christian, in that I believe the generic Christian doctrines.I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks it's problematic. I don't know how it is in the US either, but I suspect you're right. The US is much better at being non-homogenous than we lot are, it seems.
What exactly do I mean by orthodox? Well.. Tough question. I mean the lot who isolates themselves & use scripture as the primary reason for doing it. You & I probably disagree on quite a lot of things, and while you believe I'll burn in hell, I suspect you might need medication. But. The two of us are able to communicate just fine, and I'm sure we'd be able to work together without any of us getting fried or medicated.
The orthodox people I'm talking about, aren't willing or capable (pick one) of the same.

I used to hang out at a Moské in another city. Got along great with the Imam, to the dismay of some of the believers. One day I had the pleasant experience of getting shoved out of the way by an angry Muslim, while he hissed how "If we were family I'd tie you up in the garden & hose you down" or something very much similar.

I found out a year later (I'd gone away) that a few of the congregation had actually abandoned the Moské because of myself & a couple of other non-believers hanging around. I was very surprised by that.Ok... I'm sorry, I think I read you wrong. For some reason I was gathering that you were saying "these people are using their religion to get themselves in trouble, therefore religion is bad", which it seems is not your main point.Well.. It's what I think, yes. But no, it wasn't my actual point. My point was & is that they're quite a lot worse off than practically everyone else. The "religion: bad" just seems to be the reason for it, but please be aware that I haven't said anything like "religion: ban" would help. I'm have no doubt that would make things worse, and I'd personally consider it utterly detestable to try to force people to think a certain way.Well, see, one of the things I was trying to say is that I don't think you can establish a successful morality to guide a society on humanist/secular terms aloneWe seem to manage pretty well, all things considered, but regardless, it doesn't really matter in this debate.
These fringers are very few. Letting them have their way would probably lead to voluntary or forced mass-emigration from our societies, as we've spend the last couple of hundred years trying to get rid of their way of doing things. We're still doing it, actually.Well, since you would essentially be admitting to being human, I don't think it would make much diff. ;) I'm a bit of a prick myself.Another human?! And here I thought I was surrounded by typing squirrels.I'm afraid I don't have any more ideas than you do. I personally suspect the people involved of willfully separating themselves from what they see as evil, or (the next most likely) they've been rejected by neighbors etc, probably unconsciously, for being religious wackos.I'm sure it's both. I have met some of the people I'm talking about, and to be honest, I probably wouldn't work with one. Not to sound like an ass, but it'd be like going to the dentist every morning.For this reason, it seems to me that even a secular society has to do one of two things: recognize the religious impulse of humanity, or outlaw it.It already is recognised. Nothing stops them from doing their own thing. There are some very basic demands on what they have to teach their children, but otherwise they're free to do what they want, as long as there's no virgin sacrifices involved.
Like freedom of speech, humanist morality comes with a few conflicts as well. People are free to try to undermine it or refuse to live by it, as long as they don't force others to do the same. Outlawing religion thankfully wouldn't be an option, even if anyone were considering it. Nor would any sort of anti-religious indoctrination (which is funny really, considering religious indoctrination is freely practiced on children).

Finally, I'd love having a disenfranchised orthodox religious guy for dinner.. Ehm.. OK, maybe not. I'm vegan. But I'd love to discuss this with one. It doesn't seem to be mutual though. And yes, I'm probably a religion-bashing antagonistic twit, but hey, I'm not actually trying to stop them. I firmly believe there's a place for silly people in society. Just look at me. I'm employed, love what I'm doing, need nothing, have great health, travel all over & am a member of a political party. And I'm quite certain there's general agreement I'm so damn silly I've come out the other side & become yllis.

While I'm impressed by your eloquence, I'm not entirely sure from your post whether you understand what a right is in the first place. Rights certainly are not justified by God's existence, and they would certainly exist whether or not God exists or no. Moreover, I can't begin to parse out what you mean by the claim that the government is granting us our rights rather than the reverse. It sounds like a near-incoherent mishmash of Thomism and libertarianism, which is a silly amalgation.

I don't accept your view of government. It has no right to go after anyone's inherent God-granted rights, no matter what percentage of the vote you get.

If a vote goes 50,000,000-1 to take my house and all my property away from me, that is still an affront to the moral law, even though it passed with 99.999% of the vote. The rights to life, liberty, and property are inviolate, guaranteed by God, and no one can sign them away on a permanent basis. Aspects of these rights are temporarily granted to government with the idea that for a certain limited number of functions, it can, with its collective power, protect our life, liberty and property better than we can on our own.

Our Lord Christ, was the most perfect Liberator, setting us free from the tyranny of sin and wickedness. We are free, so long as we live governed by conscience and the moral law. It's an inverse relationship: As we choose to rebel more and more against God and his law, the heavy hand of government will have to enforce more and more restrictions on our life and liberty.

I don't accept your view of government. It has no right to go after anyone's inherent God-granted rights, no matter what percentage of the vote you get.

If a vote goes 50,000,000-1 to take my house and all my property away from me, that is still an affront to the moral law, even though it passed with 99.999% of the vote. The rights to life, liberty, and property are inviolate, guaranteed by God, and no one can sign them away on a permanent basis. Aspects of these rights are temporarily granted to government with the idea that for a certain limited number of functions, it can, with its collective power, protect our life, liberty and property better than we can on our own.

Our Lord Christ, was the most perfect Liberator, setting us free from the tyranny of sin and wickedness. We are free, so long as we live governed by conscience and the moral law. It's an inverse relationship: As we choose to rebel more and more against God and his law, the heavy hand of government will have to enforce more and more restrictions on our life and liberty.

Now you are just being silly. An inviolate right to property, for instance, would mean that the government would never have the right to step onto your property. Now that might sound fine to you, but suppose you are suffering a heart attack and can't verbally allow the EMT's onto your property? In that case, your inviolate right to property interferes with your inviolate right to life. Suppose that you didn't allow the city workers onto your property to hook up your lines to the sewer cables, and you gave your neighbors cholera from your exposed sewage. In that case, your inviolate property rights would be impeding on their right to life. Suppose thirdly that you are assaulted and held for ransom in your own home: the police would not have the right to step onto your property, thus respecting your inviolate right to property interferes with your right to liberty.

The purpose of the state, any state, is to prevent these kinds of externalities. If you live in the state, then of course you agree to surrender some of your rights, but you also agree to ensure that you don't die of your neighbors untreated sewage, that the EMT's will prevent you from dying from a heart attack, and that your property will be protected from crime. The failure of government to abide by the contract is not in the use of any force, but in the unjust or tyrannical use of that force. If you don't like how we as a people have decided to divvy our rights and responsibilities, then you can live somewhere else. If you don't like how any government divvies its rights and responsibilities, then you can go live in Mogadishu; just don't be surprised if your love of liberty conflicts with your neighbor's right to shoot a Kalashnikov wherever he pleases.

Further, you don't seem to understand what the purpose of the moral and the human law is: the two are in fact quite distinct and seperate. The purpose of the moral law is to act in accord with what is Godly, the ultimate aim of which is salvation of the soul. The purpose of human law is to establish peace within the state, nothing more, and nothing less. Human law cannot by force of arms be used to enforce the moral law, and the moral law in and of itself is insufficient to preserve peace within the state. As such, both are necessary in their particular spheres of interest. The fact that you don't accept my view of government makes no difference as to the inherent truth of this point.