|
|
How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook?
|
On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture. As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay
+ Show Spoiler +Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots.
getting offtopic.
To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected.
On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:
How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook?
Curious, what is this referring to?
|
well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality.
|
On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected.
'cept Israel, I think.
damn rest of the world... always gotta be picking the wrong not my side.
|
On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality.
Again,
why do you choose to fight over gay marriage but ignore other ridiculous things in the bible? What makes the bible's view on homosexuality any less ridiculous than say shelfish or pork or the sabbath from the old testament or whatever you want to pick/find from the new testament?
|
On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture. As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay + Show Spoiler +Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots. getting offtopic. To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected. Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:
How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook? Curious, what is this referring to?
Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand.
|
On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality.
If there is no discussion of religion, then there is no discussion of male to male or female to female homosexual marriage then such that it's only religion holding it back and "family values". No one is screaming "We might not be able to repopulate!" when we're popping 7Billion people on earth.
A moral discussion is ironic when it comes to religion because it generally only accepts it's own "morals" and revokes contendors (IE Homosexuality).
Moral discussion is fine for legislating laws (human rights etc) but religious values =/= morality anymore than me making a religion and saying heterosexuals are blasphemy and should not be married, it's outrageous to say the very least.
On November 12 2012 09:15 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture. As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay + Show Spoiler +Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots. getting offtopic. To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected. On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:
How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook? Curious, what is this referring to? Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand.
Define democide for me if you don't mind, do you mean genocide? And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts.
I would argue that although perhaps religion wasn't alwayts the direct cause, it was in fact what allowed such foolish things to occur by following under the guise that god is watching.
I came into this late, how is this relevant to Obama's re-election? Is it because of the Republicans neo-conservative "moral" values or..? I just don't see the connection, feels like this is mildly offtopic.
|
On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
just because something is a relatively uncontroversial moral outlook doesn't mean it's not a moral outlook.
What you describe in the second half is merely a perceived disconnect between the moral imperative and the law intended to promote it (i.e. when you speed all by yourself you are violating a law designed to protect others but which doesn't actually do that in the given situation)
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality.
but if it's an argument of one morality vs another, which we both accept, how can you have that argument if you're not willing to defend your moral position?
You just claim sacrosanctity by black-boxing your moral theory. "everyone is entitled to their opinion" and similar bullshit
|
I'm not explaining myself very well.
let's say we had a very long discussion about Christian/Jewish history and then came to our separate conclusions about whether the Scripture does teach it as an immoral act, would that change in any way, anyone discussing it here's, opinion on the matter of whether it should be legislated or not?
the best we could hope for is that the social conservative might be convinced that it's not forbidden by God and then decide that obviously there is no problem with legalizing it, but I doubt that will happen. all we would get is different interpretations of the same religious passages, and still never be any closer to the argument over whether it should be legalized or not.
|
On November 12 2012 09:15 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality. If there is no discussion of religion, then there is no discussion of male to male or female to female homosexual marriage then such that it's only religion holding it back and "family values". No one is screaming "We might not be able to repopulate!" when we're popping 7Billion people on earth. A moral discussion is ironic when it comes to religion because it generally only accepts it's own "morals" and revokes contendors (IE Homosexuality). Moral discussion is fine for legislating laws (human rights etc) but religious values =/= morality anymore than me making a religion and saying heterosexuals are blasphemy and should not be married, it's outrageous to say the very least. Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:15 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture. As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay + Show Spoiler +Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots. getting offtopic. To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected. On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:
How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook? Curious, what is this referring to? Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand. Define democide for me if you don't mind, do you mean genocide? And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts. I would argue that although perhaps religion wasn't alwayts the direct cause, it was in fact what allowed such foolish things to occur by following under the guise that god is watching.
Democide is mass murder by government, and I think religion is often used as a means to an end (control and domination of the masses), but not the reason behind it.
|
On November 12 2012 09:15 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality. If there is no discussion of religion, then there is no discussion of male to male or female to female homosexual marriage then such that it's only religion holding it back and "family values". No one is screaming "We might not be able to repopulate!" when we're popping 7Billion people on earth. A moral discussion is ironic when it comes to religion because it generally only accepts it's own "morals" and revokes contendors (IE Homosexuality). Moral discussion is fine for legislating laws (human rights etc) but religious values =/= morality anymore than me making a religion and saying heterosexuals are blasphemy and should not be married, it's outrageous to say the very least. Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:15 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:On November 12 2012 07:35 sam!zdat wrote:
Lol, how can you consider yourself to be educating people if you ignore the most influential philosophical text in all of Western history?
get real Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture. As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay + Show Spoiler +Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots. getting offtopic. To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected. On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:
How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook? Curious, what is this referring to? Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand. Define democide for me if you don't mind, do you mean genocide? And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts. I would argue that although perhaps religion wasn't alwayts the direct cause, it was in fact what allowed such foolish things to occur by following under the guise that god is watching. I came into this late, how is this relevant to Obama's re-election? Is it because of the Republicans neo-conservative "moral" values or..? I just don't see the connection, feels like this is mildly offtopic.
Can you go into more detail with the bold portion? Because in its current form it is incomprehensibly wrong.
|
sure. I have no problem with someone who believes a) immoral and b) shouldn't legislate. But if someone wants to claim a) immoral and b) should legislate I'm going to attack them on both fronts
|
On November 12 2012 09:20 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:15 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality. If there is no discussion of religion, then there is no discussion of male to male or female to female homosexual marriage then such that it's only religion holding it back and "family values". No one is screaming "We might not be able to repopulate!" when we're popping 7Billion people on earth. A moral discussion is ironic when it comes to religion because it generally only accepts it's own "morals" and revokes contendors (IE Homosexuality). Moral discussion is fine for legislating laws (human rights etc) but religious values =/= morality anymore than me making a religion and saying heterosexuals are blasphemy and should not be married, it's outrageous to say the very least. On November 12 2012 09:15 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture. As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay + Show Spoiler +Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots. getting offtopic. To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected. On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:
How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook? Curious, what is this referring to? Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand. Define democide for me if you don't mind, do you mean genocide? And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts. I would argue that although perhaps religion wasn't alwayts the direct cause, it was in fact what allowed such foolish things to occur by following under the guise that god is watching. Democide is mass murder by government, and I think religion is often used as a means to an end (control and domination of the masses), but not the reason behind it.
So similar to genocide. Alright so we agree, it's blind ignorance that allows power to fall into peoples hands because of faith. You're using the "you can't blame the soldier for the general" but in this case, you can.
Ironically this all falls back that all of this "democide" must be gods plan to begin with, but skipping that then a suitable argument would be that people would be less likely to follow mad men if they didn't have mad faith.
|
On November 12 2012 09:22 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:15 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality. If there is no discussion of religion, then there is no discussion of male to male or female to female homosexual marriage then such that it's only religion holding it back and "family values". No one is screaming "We might not be able to repopulate!" when we're popping 7Billion people on earth. A moral discussion is ironic when it comes to religion because it generally only accepts it's own "morals" and revokes contendors (IE Homosexuality). Moral discussion is fine for legislating laws (human rights etc) but religious values =/= morality anymore than me making a religion and saying heterosexuals are blasphemy and should not be married, it's outrageous to say the very least. On November 12 2012 09:15 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 07:43 NicolBolas wrote:
[quote]
Because we have a law against that sort of thing. It's called the Constitution. First amendment. The Government isn't allowed to teach religion, and teaching the Bible (regardless of how influential it might be) is still teaching religion. nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture. As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay + Show Spoiler +Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots. getting offtopic. To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected. On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:
How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook? Curious, what is this referring to? Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand. Define democide for me if you don't mind, do you mean genocide? And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts. I would argue that although perhaps religion wasn't alwayts the direct cause, it was in fact what allowed such foolish things to occur by following under the guise that god is watching. I came into this late, how is this relevant to Obama's re-election? Is it because of the Republicans neo-conservative "moral" values or..? I just don't see the connection, feels like this is mildly offtopic. Can you go into more detail with the bold portion? Because in its current form it is incomprehensibly wrong.
And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts.
Could you explain how this section is wrong? Especially the last part where religion was mainly just "listen to the church, go to heaven" and the church said pillage and rape Muslims during the crusades and thousands went over to do "gods biding".
I'm not sure what I need to make more coherent.
And after you respond, I'll respond just one more time to make my stance and then stop on this discussion which has flown a bit offtopic, partly because of me but not entirely, such that we can remain ontrack with this thread.
|
On November 12 2012 09:16 sam!zdat wrote:
but if it's an argument of one morality vs another, which we both accept, how can you have that argument if you're not willing to defend your moral position?
You just claim sacrosanctity by black-boxing your moral theory. "everyone is entitled to their opinion" and similar bullshit
point taken on the speed limit thing, I didn't think about it like that. but on this, I'll say... what good can come from me "defending" the position? the way I see it:
1) you think homosexuality is immoral, but don't think it should be illegal for homosexuals to marry.
2) you think homosexuality isn't immoral, and don't think it should be illegal for them to marry.
3) you think homosexuality is immoral, and think that it should be illegal for them to marry.
if you belong to the first group, than I don't have to defend my position that it is immoral, because you agree with me that it is. the only thing to talk about is if we should legalize it or not. if you are of the second group, than my religious opinion won't sway you because you've already heard the religious position and you've rejected it. if you're in the third group than you agree with me, and then there definitely is no point in discussing it.
I made a mistake by bringing it up, because there can't really be any true discussion about it, just a stating and restating of opinions. (unless, of course, we wanted to have a very long, involved discussion about the Scriptural evidence for either side, but that, in my opinion, would be for another thread. this one is about the election, and more generally politics. deep religious discussion just doesn't seem to belong here.)
|
On November 12 2012 09:04 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 08:58 sam!zdat wrote:On November 12 2012 08:56 sc2superfan101 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:28 Zergneedsfood wrote:Wait a second. Why is the argument against homosexuals insinuating that they're just people having premarital sex? o_O
it just isn't that simple. obviously we can't get into a huge discussion of JudeoChristian ethics/beliefs/history here, but opposition to gay marriage, and moral objections to homosexuality, do not go against any of the core philosophies. a Christian who supports gay marriage and has no moral objection to homosexuality will have to do some interesting maneuvers to justify it with Christ's message about lust and pre-marital (or extra-marital) sex.
but, as I said, it's not that important to me. I'm beginning to side more with the "pick your battles" crowd than not.
I honestly am confused by this argument. So you're saying that Christ says lust and premarital sex is a sin, okay I get that, but why is there a jump that specifically targets homosexuals as sinful without a justification that all homosexuals are just lustful individuals having premarital sex all day? Can someone explain this to me, or am I right to be 100% confused? I'll PM you, because it is wildly off-topic to the thread but it's not off-topic, that's the whole point, because you want to legislate based on it In my opinion, the legislative aspect of it doesn't necessitate a discussion of the actual philosophy, only a discussion over whether it is acceptable, in this country, to support legislative measures dictating or encouraging a certain moral outlook. most people would probably say that it isn't, but most social conservatives say that it sometimes is acceptable. why they believe what they believe is largely irrelevant to whether that belief is deserving of legislative attention.
Why do you think it's deserving of legislative attention, I haven't seen one proper answer for this.
|
I'm in group 2, but I don't just want to reject the religious position, I want to attack it as being the WRONG religious opinion.
I disagree that there can be no true discussion about it, but if you believe that there can't, then there can't - at least between US. The precondition of having a true discussion is the acceptance of the possibility of true discussion on the part of both interlocutors.
So please don't say *we* can't talk about it - say *I* refuse to talk about it.
Of course, as you point out, if you would reject 3 and modify your belief to 1, then it would not be that useful for me to pursue the point in a political context, although I might do so in the context of religious discussion. But as long as you maintain that 3, I think it is unreasonable to expect your interlocutor to refrain from attacking the religious position.
|
Alghough Romneytoss sounds cool too, I'm glad it's still Obamatoss.
|
On November 12 2012 09:25 NeMeSiS3 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 12 2012 09:22 farvacola wrote:On November 12 2012 09:15 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 09:11 sc2superfan101 wrote:
well we could say, for example, that a law concerning a speed limit on public roads doesn't necessarily contain within it any moral imperative. in one sense, it does, because it is based on the idea of public safety (human life being worth protecting), but in another sense, it doesn't because very few people would say that someone is necessarily doing something morally wrong by going over the speed limit. like if the highway is empty, it's the middle of the night, and you go 75 MPH instead of 65 MPH.
whereas something like homosexual marriage is more of a question of one side saying it is a moral imperative to not engage in that or legislate it. the social conservative might say that it is morally wrong for homosexuals to be married. now it does become an argument of one view of morality vs. another, but I still am not sure that the argument over legislation requires a discussion about the Judeo/Christian ethical view of homosexuality. If there is no discussion of religion, then there is no discussion of male to male or female to female homosexual marriage then such that it's only religion holding it back and "family values". No one is screaming "We might not be able to repopulate!" when we're popping 7Billion people on earth. A moral discussion is ironic when it comes to religion because it generally only accepts it's own "morals" and revokes contendors (IE Homosexuality). Moral discussion is fine for legislating laws (human rights etc) but religious values =/= morality anymore than me making a religion and saying heterosexuals are blasphemy and should not be married, it's outrageous to say the very least. On November 12 2012 09:15 kmillz wrote:On November 12 2012 09:08 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:45 farvacola wrote:On November 12 2012 08:43 NeMeSiS3 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:02 HunterX11 wrote:On November 12 2012 08:00 duoform wrote:On November 12 2012 07:44 sam!zdat wrote:
[quote]
nothing wrong with teaching ABOUT religion, in fact I think it's a crime that we don't
edit: teaching comparative religion is not establishment... How can you think that not teaching religion it's a "crime"? Religion is a pretty big part of history and culture. Yep, almost all the bad parts of history and culture. As if history has "good" or "bad" parts........lol hokay + Show Spoiler +Does it not? I can't think of a single combining cause that has caused more death then religious feuding. Can you?? Blind religious ignorance is something that should be placed into extinction. Stupidity shouldn't be grown through "faith", to have faith in something big is fine, to blindly accept books written during a politically fertile era of time where the world was considered flat and the earth the center of the universe seems... odd, especially since it was written through the mind of god onto text, odd he'd get that wrong.
This is extremely offtopic, but again I stand that we should allow the slow extinction of religious ignorance to continue such that we waste little time removing bigots. getting offtopic. To the Aussie who mentioned Obama, it was shown pretty much every nation on earth wanted Obama reelected. On November 12 2012 09:06 sam!zdat wrote:
How in the hell would you legislate anything without a moral outlook? Curious, what is this referring to? Democide has killed over 260 million innocent people in past century...and that isn't even including combatants. When those are factored in it is something closer to 350 million people. I think this is more attributed to power hungry psychopaths than religious fanatics, though both can go hand in hand. Define democide for me if you don't mind, do you mean genocide? And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts. I would argue that although perhaps religion wasn't alwayts the direct cause, it was in fact what allowed such foolish things to occur by following under the guise that god is watching. I came into this late, how is this relevant to Obama's re-election? Is it because of the Republicans neo-conservative "moral" values or..? I just don't see the connection, feels like this is mildly offtopic. Can you go into more detail with the bold portion? Because in its current form it is incomprehensibly wrong. And usually it is the religiously ignorant that blindly follow power fnatics. In fact religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims, while Muslims did similar acts. Could you explain how this section is wrong? Especially the last part where religion was mainly just "listen to the church, go to heaven" and the church said pillage and rape Muslims during the crusades and thousands went over to do "gods biding". I'm not sure what I need to make more coherent. And after you respond, I'll respond just one more time to make my stance and then stop on this discussion which has flown a bit offtopic, partly because of me but not entirely, such that we can remain ontrack with this thread.
Ok well why do you say "religion was based mainly on the idea of listening to whatever the church said as they raped and pilliages Muslims" when religion as a societal phenomena existed long before Islam did; Islam is a specific religion that only started around 600-650 AD, so using the word "religion" here is utterly wrong. If you actually meant "Christianity" this is still wrong because the origins of Christianity predate Islam by hundreds of years. This is all rather pedantic though, the real problem with your thinking is that it preordains certain definitions for "good" and "bad" as though qualitative evaluation of history makes sense, when in reality the procession of cultural change and power structure instantiation inherent to the track of human history render these judgements highly arbitrary. You can point to religious zealotry and its resultant bloodshed, but you cannot then conveniently ignore things like the storage of information during the Dark Ages via both Christian and Islamic religious institutions nor the sorts of religious inspired thinking that informed nearly every major pre-Enlightenment intellectual movement. You cannot artificially separate religion from mankind in order to criticize it, not if one wants to do something productive that is.
|
there can be discussion about it, but it gets all messy when we go down that road because then we've turned the purpose of the thread all around. personally, due to some of the same arguments people have already put forward, I feel as though it's not really an issue that I care about legally. if it came down to it, I wouldn't vote for it to be legal, but I wouldn't fight against it either. I take a relatively neutral position, and am even willing to say that the GOP should probably start moving in that direction too. I was more trying to play devil's advocate for the position I used to hold, which was that it was a societal good to keep it illegal. more and more I am of the opinion that this is 1) not necessarily true, and 2) increasingly causing more societal "bad" than good (the argument itself is very divisive and often brings up intolerance from both sides).
I know some conservatives are just straight-up: "Bible says it's wrong so it should be illegal!" but I think those are the minority (could be wrong there). I think most conservatives probably use the "it's bad for society because it de-legitimizes the sacrament of marriage and family" argument. I am sympathetic to that argument, but am also beginning to drop it as I grow older and experience life more and widen my perceptions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
