[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 18 2006, 12:17 AM, said:

Hmm so it seems you guys are arguing for some set of rules based on what is natural and what you believe is best after all? Rules that are imposed on others?
I only ask what countries rules are best, natural and are you enforcing?
As for a debate, I thought we have those they are called elections or should we just let unelected people tell us what is best?

Do you have any prove that your methods are better than say polygomy or arranged marriages where very young boys and girls get married? Or other common marriage cultures in other countries?

I thought elections were debates but you guys seem to want another way to make up these laws? If elections are not going to matter in this issue so be it. Let us just set up a wise council of elders who tell us what rules will govern us. I think the Pope has just the thingy.....

Mike

I'm going to repeat a question from the Korea thread
(It seems like the best way to get you to shut up and go away)

Given that you are so wise, What the ***** would you do? Its oh so very easy to make snide comments and infantile over generalizations to criticize other folks.

What do you propose as a "solution" to the whole gay marriage question?
How would you deal with the issue?

[mike777]

I am a big fan of letting states vote on that issue.
Not sure what happens as far as other states recognizing the marriage but willing to let the process play out as opposed to being imposed by a few unelected elders.
I say this with loved Gay family immediate members in my family. But so much for another civil discussion . I guess just another issue that hits close to home for me affecting people who are in my family and I love and not just another unbiased view.

[Winstonm]

In my mind the answer is fairly simple - in the U.S. we become "legally married." Legally married means jurisprudence establishes the rules and legally married couples are bound by law. Law is the province of the state; hence, the state cannot make any rules over marriage based on religious beliefs else this would constitute a state church, which is prohibited by the constitution. There is no argument against same-sex marriage other than the religious argument; therefore, there can be no governmental ban without constituting a form of governmental religion.

My question is this: if two men or two women wish to go to the courthouse and become legally married, of what concern is that to anyone else? What makes this such a huge issue other than religion? If we subtract religious views from the debate, what is left?

[Gerben42]

Quote

1.The words “under god” should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. (I'd be perfectly happy to do away with the Pledge of Allegiance, but that's another story)
2.Phrases like “in god we trust” should be removed from currency
3.Official government functions should not include any kind of “prayer”. (This includes school board meetings, congressional sessions, and court sessions)
4.People should not swear on the bible when they appear in court
5.Government should not not provide any funding to quasi-religious organizations / faith based initiatives / whatever.
6.Schools that receive government funding can require any kind of prayer, nor can they use concepts like a “moment of silence” to sidestep prohibitions of school prayer.

This all sounds too obvious. BTW do for example Jews or Muslims have to swear on the Bible in court in the US?

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 18 2006, 12:37 AM, said:

I am a big fan of letting states vote on that issue.
Not sure what happens as far as other states recognizing the marriage but willing to let the process play out as opposed to being imposed by a few unelected elders.

Weren't you the one who was bringing Lincoln in a laudatory fashion in earlier threads?
Funny to see you making a state's rights argument

[mikeh]

Winstonm, on Jul 17 2006, 04:48 PM, said:

In my mind the answer is fairly simple - in the U.S. we become "legally married."  Legally married means jurisprudence establishes the rules and legally married couples are bound by law.  Law is the province of the state; hence, the state cannot make any rules over marriage based on religious beliefs else this would constitute a state church, which is prohibited by the constitution.  There is no argument against same-sex marriage other than the religious argument; therefore, there can be no governmental ban without constituting a form of governmental religion. 

My question is this: if two men or two women wish to go to the courthouse and become legally married, of what concern is that to anyone else?  What makes this such a huge issue other than religion?  If we subtract religious views from the debate, what is left?

I wish it were that simple.

The expression of religious values in state mottos or rituals (including marriage) may appear to the non-religious amongst us (I am an agnostic with strong atheistic tendencies and am definitely non-religious) to be offensive and susceptible to ready severance.

However, in my view religion and morality appear to have evolved concurrently for most of known history. Look at the 10 commandments: they are a basic moral code (which, incidentally, appears to treat women as chattel so I find it interesting that certain segments of the US judiciary and political classes think that they should be prominently displayed as evidence of the moral views of the US) as well as a potent symbol of two powerful religions

And I suspect that many of the sincerely religious amongst us do view their religion as essentially a moral guide to life, rather than some ritualized 'real' dialogue with an old white man with a beard and a cloak. I suspect that the more intellectual amongst the religious recoginze that much in their religious texts is erroneous, based on ignorance and superstition, they no longer take the stories as factual but as allegorical or metaphorical... as providing moral values.

And historically, the statement of religious values was also a statement of moral values: the references to God being no more and no less what was expected when stating moral values. Religion was a fundamental and universal reality and few if any would have seperated morals from religion.

As long as there remains a significant percentage of the population conflating morals and religion, the state will not be able to remove the religious reference from the moral statements.

And once such a percentage no longer exists, the need to make the removal will disappear and the references will be inoffensive quaint historical relics.

As for the broader question of whether the state has any role to play in morals, as opposed to religion, my view is that the state has a huge vested interest in preserving a certain minimal level of morality and thus state rituals should reflect moral values.

What those values should be is a different story.

I, for one, see no reason why the state should use religious arguments in the selection of the moral values it imposes.

So to use, for example, biblical (or Koranic or Talmudic or...) references in arguments over abortion or same-sex marriage is offensive to me. Keep those arguments within your church and out of my living room. If a Roman Catholic wants to excommunicate a woman for having an abortion... go right ahead. If a Roman Catholic wants to have that woman jailed for offending the bible, get lost!

If that same Roman Catholic has formed a moral judgment on other than doctrinal grounds, then go ahead and vote. Because, while I personally feel that the abortion decision is primarily a decision of the pregnant woman, I recognize that society as a whole has some legitimate interest in such issues.

Read Freakeconomics if you doubt this: the author makes a compelling case that the state should encourage ready access to abortion.... and if I can argue that side of the case, it must be right that the other side gets a chance to argue against me.

For much the same reason, if one's opposition to same sex marriage is based one's religious doctrine, keep it out of discourse (impossible though that may be). But if one believes that society functions best when there are defined gender roles and that marriage is the prime means of preserving those defined gender roles and that same sex marriage destroys conventional marriage as such a means, then one can and should be able to argue that the state has a vested interest in and a duty to oppose same-sex marriages.

I happen to reject this argument, which I read recently on Slate, but it is an argument that can and should be listened to.

So I say that moral values are appropriately part of state sanctioned rituals. I also say that morals developed concurrently with religion such that our ancient rituals carry relics of religious doctrine with them... and that it is overly idealistic to expect the state to formally eliminate such relics until the need to do so disappears.

[mike777]

Freakeconomics did not make that argument and the Authors have vehemently denied that...

In any case.....if laws are going to be based on right and wrong or best versus less best than you need some value or belief system.

Call it morality, religion or science but it is going to be some belief system at some level.

What country does not pass it's laws based on some belief system, even one that changes over time?

For many all morality derives from God or a God.
For others it comes from Man....

[mikeh]

mike777, on Jul 17 2006, 06:55 PM, said:

Freakeconomics did not make that argument and the Authors have vehemently denied that...

In any case.....if laws are going to be based on right and wrong or best versus less best than you need some value or belief system.

Call it morality, religion or science but it is going to be some belief system at some level.

What country does not pass it's laws based on some belief system, even one that changes over time?

For many all morality derives from God or a God.
For others it comes from Man....

Freakeconomics did make the argument to which I made reference. They did not argue that abortion was morally correct, and may well have denied that they intended any such inference.

But they did convincingly demonstrate that perhaps the strongest factor in the well-documented decline in crime rates that occurred in the late 1990's was Roe v Wade: ready access to abortion greatly reduced the number of unwanted children born into poor socio-economic situations: and the crime rate amongst children actually born into such circumstances was and remains far higher than amongst more affluent families. That is, beyond any doubt, an argument in favour of abortion.....unless you happen to see a high crime rate and a high rate of imprisonment of petty criminals as a good thing.

If you doubt me, read the book again.

As for whether morals come from god: I have little difficulty with those who speak to God.... my problem is with those who claim he speaks back.

People who 'hear God' or to whom God speaks are the most self-deceiving individuals in the world, and the most dangerous. The voice they hear, if they are not frankly delusional, is their own (or the voice of Billy Graham or his ilk), and by claiming it as the voice of God, they get to do whatever they want, wrapped in the invulnerability of their own smug self-deification.

There are few so arrogant as those who profess a religious humility they do not feel (well, excepting those who make pronouncements like this, I suppose ).

While this attitude that God owes them a personal favour or speaks to them individually, is not an uniquely American attitude, it seems to find wider expression and acceptance there than elsewhere in the western world.

It is one of the tragedies of our time that the US has as its president a man who professes to believe that God speaks directly and literally to individuals.... including, I presume, himself.

Let me add that I have met and had (and have) as friends genuinely religious people. I have seen the strength that their faith and their fellow church members have shared in difficult times, and I respect their integrity. I recognize that, almost certainly, the many professed religionists are as sincere and generous. But one of the most notable features of modern political discourse in the US is the extent to which religion has been co-opted as a political tool and vice versa.

While I am not an American, we receive more US television channels than domestic, and I routinely listen to NPR and read international magazines and so on, so I do think that I have some concept of what is going on a few miles to the south of where I live.

I have listened to and read the thoughts of a number of Americans whose moral values resonate with mine.... and, strangely, not one of them claimed to be born-again. Nor did any one them claim that their moral code came to them direct from a God.

As Douglas Adams wrote: Who is this God person, anyway?

[mike777]

Agree with you newest point on the crime wave, etc.

Freakeconomics, great book.

Douglas Adams, great books, lousy movie but then what did we expect.

Your main point about the seeming emergence of religion in politics is one often discussed here. I just am not sure it is new or more.

Perhaps just seems like that with Blogs, Cable TV, conservative radio talk show, but my guess is it was always there and a huge force.
Another good case for measurement of 50 years ago or 100 years ago compared to now.

[Winstonm]

Well stated, Mike. I happen to agree that moral issues are indeed a part of government functioning but at the same time I do not agree with banning such actions.

I do not accept the concepts of right and wrong - to do so puts me in a position of judging and I have no right to judge. What I believe is action and consequences, and the state has the right to determine the consequences for certain actions. We are free to kill our neighbor. We are not barred from doing so. Hoever, there is a statutory consequence for that action (choice).

However, if a gay couple wish to marry, they are barred from doing so. How can this be? The state has the right to determine a consequence for this action, but they have no right to prevent the action itself. It is called free choice, without which there would be no humanity. We would all be either angels or devils without the right to self-determine our own choices.

So we have the state now with the right to institute consequences for gay marriage - what are the grounds? If it is truly more risky financially for the government to condone gay marriage? Fine, then make the consequence a higher tax on gay couples. We do that with smokers by charging cigarette taxes that others do not have to pay.

I an not atheist nor agnostic. I am more in line with spiritualist. I believe there is a power greater than ourselves; however, I also believe that power is limited by the Laws of Nature. Which came first, the Spirit or the Natural Law I don't know, but it would make sense to me that an all powerful creator could create a Law that even he could not break - or that they work in tandem. Who knows? But natural law involves actions and consequences without interference.

I believe a common story sums up this concept - probably from more than one source but I heard it through church. The parable of the prodigal son. In my views, this has nothing to do whatsoever with the son, the son's return, or redemption after turning his back on his wicked ways. This is a story about the father - when asked for his inheritance, he gave without asking. He did not try to talk his son out of going. He did not pursue. He allowed total freedom, total personal choice, and total consequences for that action. When the son came home. the father acted as if his son were the greatest thing since sliced bread - in other words, there was no judgment for his actions. There was no need. The consequences had already taken care of that.

Instead of sticking noses into politics, privacy, judgementalness, and scorn, perhaps these evangelical types would be better off adopting the motto of AA, which quite noticibly mimicks the story of the father in the prodigal son.

Live and let live.

The bible says it this way. "Before you pluck the gnat from your neighbor's eye, take out the log from your own eye." (Paraphrased)

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jul 17 2006, 06:45 PM, said:

Look at the 10 commandments: they are a basic moral code (which, incidentally, appears to treat women as chattel so I find it interesting that certain segments of the US judiciary and political classes think that they should be prominently displayed as evidence of the moral views of the US) as well as a potent symbol of two powerful religions

1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

do you base your statement on the fact that God is speaking to *men* and not women? and does this, by extension, mean that the 10 commandments wants women treated as chattel? i never would have arrived at that conclusion by reading them, i'll have to study more deeply

Quote

And I suspect that many of the sincerely religious amongst us do view their religion as essentially a moral guide to life, rather than some ritualized 'real' dialogue with an old white man with a beard and a cloak.

i guess it depends on the religion... it sounds as if you have issues with either old white men, beards, or cloaks... i do recall moses sorta looking like that (charlton heston, don't you know), but not God

Quote

I suspect that the more intellectual amongst the religious recoginze that much in their religious texts is erroneous, based on ignorance and superstition, they no longer take the stories as factual but as allegorical or metaphorical... as providing moral values.

i know of no christians, intellectual or dummies like me, who think either the old or new testaments are "... erroneous, based on ignorance and superstition ..."

Quote

As long as there remains a significant percentage of the population conflating morals and religion, the state will not be able to remove the religious reference from the moral statements.

why should they? especially if, as you seem to say, moral statements are themselves rooted in religion

Quote

And once such a percentage no longer exists, the need to make the removal will disappear and the references will be inoffensive quaint historical relics.

you think so? luckily for us, such a time is unlikely to come

Quote

So to use, for example, biblical (or Koranic or Talmudic or...) references in arguments over abortion or same-sex marriage is offensive to me.

God knows we hate to offend... believe it or not, christians find some things offensive... quite possibly any offense i take is based in ignorance and superstition, though, and should rightly be ignored

winston said:

I do not accept the concepts of right and wrong - to do so puts me in a position of judging and I have no right to judge.

i agree with your sentiment re: judging, but i don't think that to accept the concepts of the existence of right and wrong follows... for example, does the fact that you (and i) have no right to judge mean necessarily that nobody does? even if that person is the sovereign creator of the universe? (yes i know one must accept the existence of such before one can graciously grant him the right to judge)

[mikeh]

[quote name='luke warm' date='Jul 17 2006, 07:47 PM'] [quote name='mikeh' date='Jul 17 2006, 06:45 PM']Look at the 10 commandments: they are a basic moral code (which, incidentally, appears to treat women as chattel so I find it interesting that certain segments of the US judiciary and political classes think that they should be prominently displayed as evidence of the moral views of the US) as well as a potent symbol of two powerful religions


10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

do you base your statement on the fact that God is speaking to *men* and not women? and does this, by extension, mean that the 10 commandments wants women treated as chattel? i never would have arrived at that conclusion by reading them, i'll have to study more deeply [/quote]
Look at the grouping of this commandment: equating the neighbour's house, ox, ass and other possessions with his wife, his manservant and maidservant: at a time when the latter two roles were filled by slaves. Note also the refernece to 'anything else' owned by the neighbour.

One would have thought that the chattel status of women was explicit, but maybe you have to actually read the language afresh rather than recite them frm childhood memorization. Rote learning of religious doctrine is an effective way of dissuading critical thought, I guess.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jul 17 2006, 08:04 PM, said:

Look at the grouping of this commandment: equating the neighbour's house, ox, ass and other possessions with his wife, his manservant and maidservant: at a time when the latter two roles were filled by slaves. Note also the refernece to 'anything else' owned by the neighbour.

One would have thought that the chattel status of women was explicit, but maybe you have to actually read the language afresh rather than recite them frm childhood memorization. Rote learning of religious doctrine is an effective way of dissuading critical thought, I guess.

yes, i probably should apologize for my rote learning of religious doctrine... perhaps i'll get around to it one day, God knows i don't want to be dissuaded from critical thought ... but as to your conclusion re: # 10, i guess the "explicit" meaning of those words is far plainer to you than to me

are you married? believe me, i don't mean to ask a personal question, but merely to find out if you refer to your wife as ... well, as *your* wife ... do you refer to your car as *your* car? have a dog? a cat? are they *your* pets? would it bother you (assuming you are married) to find out that your neighbor coveted your wife? or your boat? (i know some who would be more pissed off about the latter than the former)... maybe covetousness is not a moral issue to you, or to your imaginary covetious neighbor

i think you're reading the text in a way meant to bolster the women as chattel statement... i personally think it means women are houses

[david_c]

mikeh, on Jul 18 2006, 01:17 AM, said:

But they did convincingly demonstrate that perhaps the strongest factor in the well-documented decline in crime rates that occurred in the late 1990's was Roe v Wade: ready access to abortion greatly reduced the number of unwanted children born into poor socio-economic situations: and the crime rate amongst children actually born into such circumstances was and remains far higher than amongst more affluent families. That is, beyond any doubt, an argument in favour of abortion.....unless you happen to see a high crime rate and a high rate of imprisonment of petty criminals as a good thing.

Sorry but I don't agree that this is an argument in favour of abortion. Certainly a reduction in the crime rate would be a good thing, but you're effectively saying that abortion is good because the foetuses that are being considered for abortion are statistically more likely to become criminals than those which are not being considered for abortion. I find that argument morally pretty grotesque. It may be true - the statistics seem plausible enough - but if we're talking about morality I just can't bring myself to accept it as an argument.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Jul 18 2006, 03:47 AM, said:

Quote

I suspect that the more intellectual amongst the religious recoginze that much in their religious texts is erroneous, based on ignorance and superstition, they no longer take the stories as factual but as allegorical or metaphorical... as providing moral values.

i know of no christians, intellectual or dummies like me, who think either the old or new testaments are "... erroneous, based on ignorance and superstition ..."

You lead a pretty sheltered life then...

There are any number of organized Christian sects that consider large parts of the Bible to be allegory and superstition. My mother's side of the family belongs to the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America. When I attended Sunday school much of the old Testament was described as allegory. (The book of Genesis, the parting of the Red Sea, Joshua making the Sun stand still, the Tower of Babel...). I would go so far as to state that the conventional wisdom held that individuals who believed in a literal interpretation of the Bible were ignorant and/or superstitious.

If you want to consider more fundamental schism, the most obvious is would be the incessant debate of the nature of the Trinity.

[mike777]

Wow I am shocked that an evangelical Lutheran church considers the Old Testament as allegory, wow...I am really surprised. This is probably the most shocking statement I have read in this thread.

[mikeh]

david_c, on Jul 17 2006, 08:43 PM, said:

Sorry but I don't agree that this is an argument in favour of abortion. Certainly a reduction in the crime rate would be a good thing, but you're effectively saying that abortion is good because the foetuses that are being considered for abortion are statistically more likely to become criminals than those which are not being considered for abortion. I find that argument morally pretty grotesque. It may be true - the statistics seem plausible enough - but if we're talking about morality I just can't bring myself to accept it as an argument.

Sorry, but you missed the entire point.

There is no logical basis for arguing that the cause and effect relationship between liberal abortion policies (I am NOT talking about mandatory abortion) and a low crime rate is NOT an argument for a liberal abortion policy. Of course it is: what else could it be?

I am NOT expressing a value judgement on abortion merely because it lowers crime rates.

I am expressing the view that a liberal abortion policy (not a compulsory policy, which I trust all would find abhorrent) would lead to a safer society. That is fact.. or appears to be so.

Ask yourself whether a safer, lower-crime society is a good thing.

I assume the answer is 'yes'.

Ask yourself whether permitting women to have ready access to safe, cheap abortion is better than the old back-street, coat-hanger days (in which, incidentally, wealthy women were often able to find safe solutions unavailable to less fortunate women). The answer must surely be yes.

But, if one is convinced that a fetus is a human being (a point of faith which is entirely illogical given the current consensus on the status of unused embryos routinely destroyed after a successful in vitro fertilization, or nature's habit of routinely destroying many fertilized embryoes in the womb in order to allow only one (unless twins etc) to develop) then one will conclude that the goal... the liberal abortion policy... is immoral and thus any argument in its favour is immoral and grotesque. So the arguments re personal safety of pregnant women or the lower crime rate will be immoral.

OTOH, others believe that the elevation of a blastoma to human status is utterly absurd and grotesque, and sometimes used by illogical or ignorant individuals in order to give free rein to their pathological need to have control of other people's belief structure and behaviour.

I am NOT accusing you or any other poster to this thread of ignorance or illogicality or pathological need... I am referring to the lunatics who murder abortion workers and blow up clinics, etc... killing law-abiding citizens for having the temerity to hold a different belief structure than theirs.

[hrothgar]

mike777, on Jul 18 2006, 05:18 AM, said:

Wow I am shocked that an evangelical Lutheran church considers the Old Testament as allegory, wow...I am really surprised. This is probably the most shocking statement I have read in this thread.

This shouldn't be particularly surprising...

The Evangelical Lutheran Church is the "liberal" wing of the Lutherans. The original schism between the Association of Evangelical Lutheran Churchs and the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod started because of a fight over Biblical literalism. The schism has since widened to include a number of other issues (ordaining women, ecumenicalism, etc.)

[mike777]

Yes, I am very aware of the Missouri and Wisconsin Synods. I guess only in the Lutheran church is evangelical considered the Liberal wing

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jul 17 2006, 08:25 PM, said:

yes, i probably should apologize for my rote learning of religious doctrine... perhaps i'll get around to it one day, God knows i don't want to be dissuaded from critical thought ... but as to your conclusion re: # 10, i guess the "explicit" meaning of those words is far plainer to you than to me

are you married? believe me, i don't mean to ask a personal question, but merely to find out if you refer to your wife as ... well, as *your* wife ... do you refer to your car as *your* car? have a dog? a cat? are they *your* pets? would it bother you (assuming you are married) to find out that your neighbor coveted your wife? or your boat? (i know some who would be more pissed off about the latter than the former)... maybe covetousness is not a moral issue to you, or to your imaginary covetious neighbor

i think you're reading the text in a way meant to bolster the women as chattel statement... i personally think it means women are houses

Please accept my apology for assuming that you were a rote learner of doctrine. That was inappropriate, unjustified and rude.

Having said that, I remain firmly of the view that a logical and correct reading of the commandment DOES reflect the then prevailing cultural attitude towards women and other human possessions (slaves).

Which raises an interesting question.

Are morals, as prescribed by religious doctrine, immutable?

If so, then presumably God was setting out moral values when he handed down the commandments. Including, on my reading, that it was appropriate to own people, whether they be wives or slaves. Bear in mind that Jefferson, and many other famous Christians also owned slaves... and the commandments merely enjoined them from coveting those owned by their neighbour.

We now view slavery as immoral... yet clearly ownership of humans was religiously ok as recently as 200 years ago.

Of course, if one accepts that the 10 commandmants are a tool of social engineering devised by Moses (alone or with the aid of others), then it makes sense that the code would contemplate and approve of moral values that were widely prevalent then but now rejected.

If one holds that the commandments are divine and that divinely prescribed moral values are immutable, and that ownership of one human by another is immoral, then a careful reading of the commandments will induce a condition of cognitive dissonance. The reader will be unable to think logically because the logic of the situation affronts his deeply held beliefs... and logic cannot overcome core values.