Morality v. Religion

[padgett316]

I find it very disturbing and insulting how the liberal movement in America manipulates the doctrine of the separation between church and state into a vehicle which they use to demonize Christianity and religion as a whole, encouraging the notion that morality is nothing but a menial characteristic of concern only to the religious.

Is it true that the liberal movement will not rest until they manage to align the concepts of 'morality' and 'religion' and manage to eliminate all occurences of both in American life? I certainly believe that they are trying, and I only hope (or pray, if I dare use religious terms) that their efforts are defused.

For example, this is not just specific to the gay marriage debate, but is it not possible that a behavior, such as homosexual activity, could be 'immoral' to people from more than just a religious angle? And please don't feel the need to rehash the pros and cons of gay marriage, but I was just trying to provide an illustration of my question.

[JuanValdez]

I wouldn't say what you call the 'liberal movement' is trying to do away with morality altogether. They have their own moral code which differs in particulars and in underlying reasoning but carries the same weight with them as Christian morality carries among the religious. For example, the sanctity of individualism -- which is expressed in abortion rights ("a woman gets to decide about her own body"), in homosexual rights ("what a person does in his own home in no one else's business (as long as they're consenting adults)"), drugs, free speech, etc, etc -- is often appealed to axiomatically without feeling any need to justify the principal. I think it has been installed as a secular moral law; and there are others with similar roles. The problem such a moral code faces, which is a problem that all atheistic (or areligious) constructs face, is that it is very decentralized and democratic and doesn't have the benefit of a central organizing body to give it a cohesive singular structure. That makes it hard to define and sometimes self-conflicting. But, I don't think it makes it any less real (by which I mean operable, not necessarily valid) than the traditional church-based moralities, just different.

[MacBeth]

Why is it that people who claim to believe in an absolute morality assume that it coincides with theirs?

You can argue with conventional morality without being a moral relativist. Much of what is dismessed as moral relativism is merely an acknowledgment that conventional moraility has continually changed over time, therefore telling us that if there is an absolute morality, we have a less than perfect perception of it at any time.

[Chump]

where do you see "liberals" demoize Christianity?

all I see is "liberals" wanting the United States to continue and remain a secular government

to quote a bumbersticker,

"the last time we mixed politics and religion, people got burned at the stake"

if by demoize you mean being weary of legislating religious dogma, then yes, liberals will demoize that as the government shouldn't be involved in telling adults how to live their private life IMO

[MadMax]

what if our perception of morality is irrelevant, though? what if some standard of morality exists a certain way, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not?

[Jeff]

There are plenty of liberals who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. There are also plenty of atheists who aren't necessarily liberal.

Being a good, moral person does not require religion. You can practice good ethical behavior without the support of any religious belief.

It is also important to realize that morality is as much a function of society as it is religion. There were times when it was immoral to eat pork or for men to cut their hair or for women to sit in the front of the church or to say the word "pregnant" on television.

None of those things were born out of a WWJD sense of spirituality or religion. They were born out of a societal need to repress something that, at the time, seemed indecent.

[Jeff]

Originally posted by MadMax what if our perception of morality is irrelevant, though? what if some standard of morality exists a certain way, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not?

That's actually an interesting point. I tend to believe that there is an overriding morality that supercedes everything else, but I don't view it in terms of the specific - don't drink, don't fornicate, etc. I view it in terms of the broad - do unto others, love thy neighbor, etc.

Those broader concepts go well beyond one specific religion.

[padgett316]

Rephrase:

Are these things "wrong" in the sense that our society's right to limit them supercedes the individual's alleged "right" to engage in them?

Pornography

Adultery

Foul Language

Disrespectful behavior towards authority

Polygamy

Incest

Statutory Rape

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by MadMax what if our perception of morality is irrelevant, though? what if some standard of morality exists a certain way, whether we choose to acknowledge it or not?

But if our percepetion is irrelevent, than how do you translate that into practice? If many things which are now considered moral used to be considered immoral, and the reverse, why do we establish practices on the prmise that we are now in possession of those absolute moral truths? People have always thought the same while blieving in entriely different concepts of moraility.

As such, other than concessions to societal desires, systems of practice based on concetion of morality are repetitions of flawed reasoning.

Our perception might very well be irrelevent...doesn't mean it's accurate.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by padgett316 What about things that have been considered "wrong" for centuries upon centuries, but are today becoming increasingly prevalent and accepted, such as explicit sexual and vulgar content on television and in music of both the hetero and homosexual variety, adultery, disrespect of people in authoritative positions? Is it not true that the secular moral code that you describe as being supported by liberals is so baseless and nebulous that it has resulted in all of these negative consequences exponentially increasing?

Explicit sexual content as it relates to television is by definition limited to this century. But in a general sense, our standards of sexual moraility are no more consistent with history than any other period. There have been places and times where many sexual standards have been much more 'permissive' than ours.

Adultery itself is a selective term. Monogamy and marriage are neither accepted moral standards throughout history.

Disrespect of authority is subjective. According to the general moral standard of history, if there is such a thing, the American Revolution was a greater example of disrespect of authority than almost any social practice current today.

[Chump]

Originally posted by padgett316 What about things that have been considered "wrong" for centuries upon centuries, but are today becoming increasingly prevalent and accepted, such as explicit sexual and vulgar content on television and in music of both the hetero and homosexual variety, adultery, disrespect of people in authoritative positions? Is it not true that the secular moral code that you describe as being supported by liberals is so baseless and nebulous that it has resulted in all of these negative consequences exponentially increasing?

are you that naive to think that these things are new and in greater abundance today than in the past?

just read the Bible, it is filled with explicit sexuality, adultery, disrepect of people in authoritative postions....

[B-Bob]

Originally posted by Jeff There are plenty of liberals who are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim, etc. There are also plenty of atheists who aren't necessarily liberal.

Thank you, Jeff! padgett, it's really hard for me, a Christian "liberal" (shudder, I know it's creepy), to formulate any sort of reply until you restate the question somehow.

Imagine if I asked you "will all the conservatives ever stop until they have cynically united Christianity with a movement to re-enslave all people of color and the poor to their global corporatist greed?!"(*) at the top of a thread. Would you feel like participating in that dialogue?

* sorry, glynch... I don't think I got that quotation exactly right.

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by B-Bob Thank you, Jeff! padgett, it's really hard for me, a Christian "liberal" (shudder, I know it's creepy), to formulate any sort of reply until you restate the question somehow. Imagine if I asked you "will all the conservatives ever stop until they have cynically united Christianity with a movement to re-enslave all people of color and the poor to their global corporatist greed?!"(*) at the top of a thread. Would you feel like participating in that dialogue? * sorry, glynch... I don't think I got that quotation exactly right.

Have Christian conservatives stopped beating their wives, yes or no?

[Chump]

Originally posted by MacBeth Have Christian conservatives stopped beating their wives, yes or no?

when has Christianity ever been about conviction?

its always been a "do as I say, not as I do"-religion, it is built into the religious dogma.

[pgabriel]

Originally posted by padgett316 Is it true that the liberal movement will not rest until they manage to align the concepts of 'morality' and 'religion' and manage to eliminate all occurences of both in American life?

How does eliminating Religion from the Law equate to eliminating it from your Life? Do you need a law to tell you to follow your religious beliefs?

[MacBeth]

Originally posted by Chump when has Christianity ever been about conviction? its always been a "do as I say, not as I do"-religion, it is built into the religious dogma.

Whoa.


I was being light-hearted about lobster trap questions, not commenting on chrisitian hypocrisy.


But, to digress, I would disagree about the conviction of Christianity, particularly pre-Constantine. To me the hypocrisy began when it became confused with power maintenance. In that respect, however, it is no different than any other human system. If you look that the US as an example, you could say Democracy has always been about 'do as I say, not as I do." Does that mean it is an inherent flaw in the system, the idea, or this manifestation?

[MadMax]

Originally posted by Chump when has Christianity ever been about conviction? its always been a "do as I say, not as I do"-religion, it is built into the religious dogma.

James 1:22 --

22Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like a man who looks at his face in a mirror 24and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25But the man who looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues to do this, not forgetting what he has heard, but doing it--he will be blessed in what he does.

John 13:12 --

12When he had finished washing their feet, he put on his clothes and returned to his place. "Do you understand what I have done for you?" he asked them. 13"You call me 'Teacher' and 'Lord,' and rightly so, for that is what I am. 14Now that I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also should wash one another's feet. 15I have set you an example that you should do as I have done for you. 16I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him. 17Now that you know these things, you will be blessed if you do them.

I can think of Christians I know who live their faith. Who get involved with the lives of those less fortunate...who spend time counseling...who sacrifice of their time and resources...who go on mission trips to disease-ridden places halfway around the world. And those are just people I personally know...not the Mother Theresas of the world. Please don't make blanket statements like that.

[MR. MEOWGI]

Originally posted by padgett316 Rephrase: Are these things "wrong" in the sense that our society's right to limit them supercedes the individual's alleged "right" to engage in them? Pornography Adultery Foul Language Disrespectful behavior towards authority Polygamy Incest Statutory Rape

I think you are generalizing too much. you can say "rape is wrong" but you have to understand why. You have to decide if every action you make is correct or incorrect. You should not blanket everything with such statements.


When the living values are absent, rituals and dogmas are lifeless, rigid, and even oppressive. You can say "killing is wrong" but we kill everyday. You kill microscopic creatures when you boil water. Is that wrong? Is is wrong to sacrifice your life for others? Is that killing yourself?

What if you were told you had to cheat on your wife or many people would die? Would adultery be wrong then? That might sound like a stretch but might point is there are always exceptions. That is why there are no absolutes. I there were there would be no need for human rational thought.

[padgett316]

Originally posted by MR. MEOWGI I think you are generalizing too much. you can say "rape is wrong" but you have to understand why. You have to decide if every action you make is correct or incorrect. You should not blanket everything with such statements. When the living values are absent, rituals and dogmas are lifeless, rigid, and even oppressive. You can say "killing is wrong" but we kill everyday. You kill microscopic creatures when you boil water. Is that wrong? Is is wrong to sacrifice your life for others? Is that killing yourself? What if you were told you had to cheat on your wife or many people would die? Would adultery be wrong then? That might sound like a stretch but might point is there are always exceptions. That is why there are no absolutes. I there were there would be no need for human rational thought.

I am not talking in the concept of absolutes. I am talking about the ability of man to make laws with moral overtones, and in order to do so, you have to be able to speak in some sense of generalization. I believe most of our statutes can be written with enough specificity to alleviate any concerns you have that you may be incarcerated for swatting a fly.

Also, I realize how much the regulars on this board love to debate their respective interpretations of the Bible. That was absolutely not my intention. I specifically said (and if I didn't, I will now) that I believe that the far-left is attacking religion of all sorts because it is the most obvious promoter of morality. I am wondering if there is anyway to make liberals believe that some things are 'wrong' outside of religious bounds, but in 'humanistic' terms. The examples I gave were behaviors that I believe are 'wrong' in the sense that we have a right as a society to ban/limit them as unacceptable behaviors, and I believe that their "wrongness" should exceed any alleged religious motives that are attached to those limitations.

[Chump]

Originally posted by MadMax I can think of Christians I know who live their faith. Who get involved with the lives of those less fortunate...who spend time counseling...who sacrifice of their time and resources...who go on mission trips to disease-ridden places halfway around the world. And those are just people I personally know...not the Mother Theresas of the world. Please don't make blanket statements like that.

well of course there are MadMax, I didn't intend to suggest there weren't

my point was that the amount of hypocrisy inherent in Christianity is considerable on many levels