I am one of those that believe "religion" and "ethics/morals" are directly correlated. However, I am not religious, just a lover and admirer of Jesus. I believe what the Bible says...I think its interesting that some feel it is not necessary to bring up "religion" when speaking about ethics, however, without pointing out heresy, even the belief in no god is a form of "religion" itself. Out of curiosity, if not from a divine power, where would ethics and morals come from, and for what purpose would they have come?

There have been many interesting theories to account for the human morality - Kant's categorical imperative being a particularly well know one.

The reason for the biblical quotes I gave in one of my previous posts was to point out that there is are actions, for example slavery, which are specifically condoned in the bible and yet considered immoral today. This being an example of human morality taking precedence over divine.

I am not sure that the origin of Ethics contributes any insight into the content of Ethics as such: the meaning of good and the definition of right action.
Regards,
John

LOL, untrue Fozzie. Following DSTM's comment I made a point to introduce my views on the systemic flaws leading to such behavior. And I presented them in a secular fashion.

The pace of our lives has reached break-neck speed. Both parents must usually work in order to stay financially solvent. Compounding this with the plethora of activities available for us and our children leads to an inevitable shortage of free time. When we do get free time, we are either too exhausted or too distracted to commit ourselves to becoming better human beings.

Also, it seems as if society is moving towards a laissez-faire approach to the upbringing of children. Too much discipline and you will have Children's Protective Services charging into your home and evaluating you with your family, as if they have a right to judge! Too little discipline and you open yourself up for much of the behavior I spoke of in the afore-mentioned post.

I think our socio-economic structure needs to be re-assessed. One parent should be able to spend time after school with their children, at least. And I think we need to make a decision about education. Either we are serious as a society about education or we are not. If we are serious, we must begin by re-structuring the education system so that it is not so top-heavy.

Double the teachers' pay immediately. This will create a much more competitive market for educators, from the hiring standpoint. After a few years of this, a generation of ideal candidates will arise, because now there is monetary reward for choosing that profession. Why should the educators of our children (who supervise them for 8 hours a day) be low-payed civil servants? As an aside, myself and three of my friends are all licensed teachers. None of us teach! And I think we are pretty grounded, cool folks.

After the pay structure as had time to cultivate a desirable field of educators, give them more power as developers of children. Allow them to discipline beyond a soft verbal warning. If parents want teachers to parent, they must be allowed to discipline.

At least that is where I would start.

Regards,
bg04

I understand that John, and I do adhere to the free opinion matter, but I you cruise through the threads in the Speak Easy you will see an increasing number of posts which all turn into one direction and which necessarily has less to do with the subject as such as towards the subject of the discussion. I do enjoy reading these discussions because they tell a lot about the people on BC, and makes me feel like being in a real group, whether I agree with them or not.

I do feel very strong about the degrading of now-a-days society which has less to do with clergival matters but more with what is available these days. I can only but hope that in the generations to come there will be a turn around in general mentality as I fear for my children and their children,

i won't go into recent tragic events, and about the whole "owning guns discussion "..




Sorry I missed that one BG04

This is the essence of our problems. Wellput. Everybody is under pressure for more and more....

Stupid question, but where is this money going to come from to do this? I believe there should be a whole lot of teacher firings. Great teachers are few and far between. You don't mind paying incompetent teachers a bunch of money for a few years until you "weed out" the good ones to hire? Now that I think about it, this seems like a typical government solution. Throw more money at the problem and hope that it goes away over time instead of dealing with the actual problems.


As for the condoned slavery in the Bible. I challenge the poster to point to where God is FOR bondage.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?searc...&version=9;

jwinathome, if you had read the post more carefully, you would have seen that I recommended making the system less top-heavy. Also, I think most of the issue is lack of discipline. Thus, freeing up numerous 6-figure incomes by eliminating multiple superintendants would allow for more money to be disbursed. And just so you know, my Mother is an accountant in little town Montana. She audits the school districts. Many have millions sitting in funds, which they don't report to the public.

I'm not saying throw more money at education, I'm saying throw more money at educators.
There has to be some mechanism by which we can attract a better group of college graduates who will be willing to enter the educational field. At this point there is no monetary benefit.

And how would you deal with the aftermath of your "mass teacher firings"? Some kids don't get an education? Or some teachers now have twice the classload? Ever taught in a school? Easy to trash that for which you have no plan.



Actually, I would rather pay someone more who is in the trenches than pay a superintendent 160K for them to go to 3 meetings a month. After one year, it will be obvious who cuts it and who doesn't. There is no shortage of students in the educational programs at colleges. The problem is none of them want to do that work for 20k a year, so they move to another profession (like me). The ones who were weeded out were high paid babysitters for a year, until a suitable replacement is found. There are worse things to spend our money on than our children's education.

For the record, I am against Big Government. That is not the design delineated by the Constitution.

Regards,
bg04

Just out of curiosity..are you relating this to modern day western slavery? If so, I strongly suggest you research the differences between "slavery" in ancient Israel vs. what you are probably relating it to. The two are completely different. To get a context of what you are reading, you need to read Exodus and Leviticus to gain the understanding of the ridiculousness involved in "owning" a slave. For example, harming your slave would be cause for your death. (In Exodus)...I challenge you to read it. I have no intention to sway your thinking. Honestly, but the verse you pointed me to in no way shows God is FOR the bondage of man...the Bible is riddled with hundreds if not thousands of verses that show the exact opposite...God is indeed for the Freedom of His created people. Jew and Gentile alike.

Of course, thats my opinion.

I do apologize for not paying close enough attention to the top-heavy part. I completely agree with that. However, in my particular county of graduation, teachers are completely inept and corrupt (teaching their personal opinions on matters and bias's.) However they are not being fired...and its not because there are not enough teachers readily available. Its because of the "human rights" aspect and "political correctness."

Can they not report millions in funds? That is legal? And where exactly does that money sit and who is it no being reported to? And why wouldn't they report it?

I am not FOR mass teacher firings. Just FOR teacher firings in general where applicable.

for the record, it seems that students nowadays control the classrooms quite more than the teachers do.

I am for Itsy-Bitsy-Tiny government.

See post #22.

Religion aside, I do wonder about where we, as society, went so terribly wrong.

We developed 'Child Protection Services' to protect children who are truly mistreated - surely not to protect them against a parent swatting their diapered bum. Yet we hear about case after case where Child Protection Officers have become involved over something like this, the child/children are taken away and a long, agonizing process must be following before the bewildered parents and kids are reunited.

And teachers struggling with crumby pay, over-crowded classrooms, children who need help simply not getting it and apparently fewer and fewer children who do graduate can even read and write at a basic 'Grade 4' level.

Parents who are so exhausted that even having a sit-down dinner each evening with the children seems beyond their coping ability. Parents who seem to feel it's okay to drag home copious amount of supplies from their work place for their own use, yet tell children it's wrong to steal.

Parents who get enraged the moment a neighbour or a teacher or a police officer says their child has done something totally unacceptable. Children that 'lip off' anyone and everyone, including parents, teachers - with nary a punishment.

And our present legal situation seems to tell children that 'do the crime, pay the time' is simply non-existent often.

Society that doesn't expect much, usually doesn't get much. A parent who expects nothing of their child will often to horrified to find they get nothing and their child turns into 'nothing' (as in a lousy member of society and equally bad, a person who is unhappy and caused great unhappiness, even to those they love).

I know I'm guilty of ranting a tad here - gentle smile - but perhaps we can't blame the government as much as ourselves for all this?

This statement is WRONG WRONG WRONG: Catholics do worship the three persons in One God: God the Father, God the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit. It is called the Holy Trinity. A complex matter of Faith which many people do not understand, unfortunately.

Many Catholics PRAY to Jesus' Mother, Mary: she has appeared to people at Lourdes and other places, with messages asking for world peace. Catholics may pray to their favorite Saints, like St. Jude the Miracle Worker, and to the Blessed Mother for guidance, but we WORSHIP GOD. The FIRST COMMANDMENT is "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me". I know my prayers have been answered, even in miraculous ways. And there have been discussions about removing statues from our Churches so that people do not get confused that we worship the people in Jesus' life on Earth. And if you had ever BEEN IN A CATHOLIC CHURCH, the first thing you would see is Christ's body hanging on a cross, when He died so that sins may be forgiven.

I am sick of attacks against the Catholic Church - especially when you know NOTHING about us except what you might read in the Rags and liberal slanted newspapers. Have you ever attempted Bible Study, or even read the first chapter? The answer has to be NO. And where did you get the support of Mussolini? Sounds like more propaganda to me. Please do not pretend to state the "truth" when you have no first-hand knowledge of what you are talking about.

The Blessed Mother's name is Mary, not "marry". Ignorance is hardly bliss, my friend. Even Christians are failing to see the ACLU's fascist attacks against American Christians and even the Boy Scouts.

I posted elsewhere that I believe the 2 crucial components that need to be taught are self-responsibility and the value of human life. (Yes, they are a bit vague, but you get the gist of it.)

I rather enjoyed your rant. I totally agree. People take a victim mindset when the government doesn't solve their every issue...then they turn right around and EXPECT the government to take care of their every issue. Not necessarily in that order.

Interestingly enough, I feel that none of this stuff matters. It's all about Jesus. He really isn't offensive.

If you are talking about me I already said I am sorry for the mixup. I really thought I knew.

In the Bible it says you are to worship one God and thats Jesus Christ and him ONLY.

No praying to Mary or your favorite apostle in the Bible. If you believe in Jesus and the Bible then you know praying to anyone but him is pointless.

But lets not get this topic off topic.

Why is our society so bad? Well many things cause it. One being to much acceptance on things that are wrong.

The below was one of our local news headlines today. It doesn't surprise me that the idiot sued (after all, a lot of our society seems to feel that the bad guy is also the 'victim' - gentle sigh) - but it suprises me that he got anything. Thank goodness the Judge at least didn't give him the full amount.

"Shoplifter awarded $12,000 in damages

(CBC) - An admitted shoplifter has been awarded $12,000 for injuries he suffered during an altercation with a security guard and a store manager at a Superstore in B.C.'s Lower Mainland nearly three years ago. Daniel Baines admitted in court that he was trying to steal more than $100 worth of razor blades from the Superstore in Delta in August 2004.

The two employees grabbed him by the arm as he tried to leave the store. Baines tried to pull away, and the three men began to struggle.

All three ended up stumbling down the stairs, and Baines got kicked and punched during the altercation that led to his arrest.

He lost a tooth, and said he can no longer chew properly or speak properly.

Baines sued the store, claiming the use of force against him was not justified.

The store's lawyer argued that Baines was the author of his own misfortune; that when he stole the razors he should have expected to get stopped, and that Baines shouldn't have resisted when the security guard grabbed him.

In the end, B.C. Supreme Court Justice William Ehrcke ruled Baines did not deserve to be kicked or punched, and assessed damages at $15,000.

But he also decided that Baines was partly at fault, assessing his responsibility for his injuries at 20 per cent, reducing the award by $3,000."

I remain speechless...

That is ridiculous, and further proof of the downfall of this society's moral standards. I can't believe anyone would find that shoplifter a victim. If they had say, beaten him "after" he was arrested, then yes that would be abuse, but he struggled and fell down the stairs. His fault, yet it wasn't? And he got 12 grand? sigh...

But who decided to award that shoplifter the money? A single judge, ruling in favor of lunacy! And what recourse does the company have? Not one that doesn't involve spending thousands of dollars.

What justice!?

When will this madness end?

This is truly insanity. Teachers need to take courses in Ethics, but politicians don't. This Country has decended into this madness because our "leaders" are merely people with money and name recognition. This shoplifter-making-crime-pay is another example of America's leaders picking which laws to enforce. After all, the politicians do not need to abide by our laws. Example: in Florida (and lots of other states) it is completely illegal to smoke indoors. Yet the lobby leading into the House of Representatives in DC (the one we see on CSPAN) had indoor smoking until just recently, when Pelosi changed the rule. Not that I like the liberal left, they are always pushing the majority aside to make the minorities "comfortable" in our Country. That's what destroyed our Melting Pot. The conservative right is no longer representing smaller government, and the threat to Roe v Wade along with the "Drug Czar" (sorry don't know his name) is using his tax funds to buy advertising against cannabis! There are economic studies that this "Drug War" is a waste of money, yet it goes on while the president pardons drug dealers and some mexican drug dealer got to testify against Border Patrol Agents who now rot in jail with the people they used to arrest.

We must get informed, and speak out against this foolishness. Letters to the Editors of your local newspapers, and Congress.org give you a method to speak back to the government. And, if you think America should keep our Sovereignty, and not erase our borders to become some huge North American country, please get acquainted with NumbersUSA.com.

I hope that store appeals the judge's decision. I believe the Constitution gives us the right to protect our property.

Here in Canada, we don't have a Constitution quite the same as in the States - in fact, much of our law is based on British law. But yes, the store could appeal the judgement (although I doubt they will as quite rightly, someone else pointed out that it would cost more in legal fees that it's worth).

What truly fascinates me is the law itself and Judges who, in cases such as this, have the sole power to make a 'judgement'. I wonder why a Judge wouldn't see the simply black humour that exists - if the silly twit had simply given himself up when caught, he wouldn't have been hurt. It's his fault. Period.

And often, I find myself considering Judges and their sentencing of people - or even more often, the lack of. While I understand their hands are often 'tied' when there are juries involved, etc, even in the cases where they are the sole authority, 'justice' seems to be lost somewhere along the way.

Check this out! It is a felony in Florida to be in possession of an alligator, without a permit. Over the weekend, a man found a dead 4 1/2' alligator, dragged it back to his home and read up on how to skin them to make belts and such (his story). He got arrested and had to pay $2,000 bail.

Alligator is actually good food. But the man denied it was for food, his family does not eat road kill. So often I see our police and DAs going after "Soft targets" such as Martha Stewart. Who did she hurt? Senators make more money in the stock market, as a group, than insider traders! But Martha's cool company of about 80 people got hammered. During her trial, they took her show off the air, but we still have to see OJ Simpson's ugly mug in some Sci Fi movie he made years ago.

I too wonder how some judges get away with their sentencing. Sometimes they give child-molesters 6 months jail time. Our three branches of "justice" are supposed to balance themselves out, but I don't see it happening. When Congress voted to give power to the Prez to declare war on Iraq, they squandered their responsibility to make sure we were not being run like a dictatorship. This prez has made history in that regard...

And now when anything comes up for vote, these people are voting strictly along party lines. It's like, well what are you guys going to vote for? OK, then, we'll vote opposite. I guess great countries don't get to last more than 200 years.

1. I wonder this as well. At the same time, I don't think the mandatory sentencing is a good idea either; each trial ought to be dealt with individually.

2. I couldn't agree more. The problem is that the Republican Party gave in to Bush's every whim, no matter how "un-Republican" the administration has chosen to behave. Only relatively recently (not too long before the midterm elections) did you begin to see moderate Republicans begin to re-think their unquestioned support for Bush. Now, such devotion to the President amounts to political suicide...and rightfully so.



1. How about paying teachers better wages...and not paying administrators bloated, 6 digit salaries? That's right, 6 digit salaries for superintendents while in many districts teachers fight to keep health benefits. That's what irritates me...the idea that a non-educator gets paid 2 to 3 teacher's salaries yet has no real function, other than PR. I personally think the ideal solution would be this: school administrators should be elected, and paid union teacher wages.

Teachers, at least in the US, max out around 45k to 55k annually. They max out after many years of service; that's right, they put in the time to make that much. And it really isn't that much. No one becomes a teacher to get rich, that's for sure. Plus, they often work long days and they constantly have to get re-certified. The "teachers are greedy and overpaid" thing really bugs me.

2. Actually, in my primary and secondary education, I had pretty good teachers all the way through. And mine was a relatively small rural school.

3. The bible passage that was quoted suggests that g(G)od condones slavery. And indeed, as far as I know, it never says that control or ownership of human beings is wrong. Seafox might be the one to consult on the existence of such a passage.

But then, I think the bible is clearly limited to the knowledge base of the people who wrote it (as opposed to being "inspired by g(G)od") and thus reflects the reality of slavery as part of daily life. It probably never occurred to those who wrote the bible that it was wrong; they probably just took slavery for granted, as an inescapable reality of life.

4. Well, I don't worship Jesus as a god, but from what I know of him he did have some pretty good ideas!

Weren't the Jews slaves of the Egyptians? And they escaped? LocallyPawned, your item 3 second paragraph is right-on target: the Bible was written for its current time...

Now, to take religion out of this discussion and put it squarely where it belongs, the ultra-left-wing-loonies have been so busy taking morality out of our culture. The ultra-far-Right is not without guilt here, but I will insert a quote from a letter to Conservatives I received today:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Dear Conservative:

Brace yourself: Congress is coming after you and your family! The twisted San Francisco values of Nancy Pelosi are about to pollute all we hold near and dear. Led by the new Speaker of the House, loony liberals who now control Congress are determined to keep us from ...

Securing our borders!
Lowering our taxes!
Preserving our Constitution!
Maintaining our sovereignty!
Rooting out corruption!
Protecting marriage!
Turning back U.N. schemes!
Resisting Islamification!
Fighting the war on terror!

Speaker Pelosi, who hails from the most libertine city in the nation, is ardently anti-religion, anti-family, pro-homosexuality. And so far Congress appears to be in lock step with her. In fact, most in the House and Senate see you as an “enemy of the state.” And it’s true -- you are an obstacle to the immoral state they plan to create in place of the America we know and love!

Please hurry, because the loony left already is attacking, making right wrong by calling bad good and good bad. And get this: to achieve their goals, Speaker Pelosi wants to skyrocket your taxes! The House is being pushed to be soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on illegal aliens, soft on marriage, soft on gun rights. Why, Pelosi doesn’t even believe we should be fighting Islamic terrorism!

Congress is giving a ghastly green light to detrimental organizations intent on mangling America like cultural tornadoes. Cheered on by the leftist media, liberal groups are launching brazen assaults on our nation’s morals, families, foundation and sovereignty. Everywhere you have the courage to look -- courtrooms, state legislatures, city councils, school boards and classrooms -- an increasing number of threats menace you and your loved ones. Never before has our nation faced so many threats on so many cultural battlefields.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Granted, this is a plea for a donation, but the basic message is true. The ACLU also attacks America's culture, including the Boy Scouts! (sorry if I've said this before).

Following is some documentation on Pelosi (the new Jane Fonda) and her antics:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

As Liberals Amplify Anti-War/ Anti-Troop Rhetoric, Your Voice is Making a Difference

Two weeks ago, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi undermined U.S. foreign policy with her unauthorized trip to Syria to meet with that country's president, Bashar al-Assad -- a known supporter of terrorism, including the insurgency in Iraq. She did so against the wishes of the White House and Departments of State and Defense. She did so possibly in violation of the Logan Act, which affirms the Constitutional directive that matters of foreign policy reside solely with the Executive Branch. Madam Pelosi is now pondering a "diplomatic trip" to Iran.

Last week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid publicly declared, "This war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything." As if bolstering the will of America's enemies and deflating the morale of U.S. troops weren't enough, Reid followed up his comment by stating that he wouldn't believe General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, if he said things were improving there. Perhaps the Democrat leader needs to be reminded that he was one of 81 Senators to vote in favor of General Petraeus' confirmation back in January (not one Senator voted against his confirmation). Oh yeah, Reid also voted to authorize the war.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Politics is what's filthy in America. Too bad we only have two major parties with any chance of electing a President or legislators. We who would like itsy-bitsy government would be Libertarians. But I do think we need the programs that feed the hungry and heal the sick. Social Security was invented as an insurance policy we paid for during our working years (FICA tax) so that we could have a dignified retirement and care if we are disabled. It torks me off that the overfunded Social Security fund is robbed by our legislators for their pork projects; SS recipients are losing coverage so that money can be given to illegal aliens who have not paid in or earned enough credits to receive benefits.

The Constitution states that one reason for going to war is INVASION. If you look at the numbers of illegal aliens crossing the borders, we are indeed being invaded. I do not believe in a world economy. I do not believe we should be giving aid to countries who use that money to murder our soldiers and Americans who travel. 70% of Americans want the borders closed up. Why then, are our legislators ignoring us? Just like on Flight 93, Americans are having to stand up and do it ourselves. Hail to the MinuteMen who are guarding the Southern Border and damn the fools who jailed our Border Patrol agents for doing their jobs.

And don't let anybody tell you that Islam is a peaceful religion. They are taught to destroy societies, and have recently demonstrated that England is their next target. It is unfortunate that Muslims cannot seem to get along with anyone who is not Muslim. Look what they did to France (couldn't happen to a nicer country); and they made so much trouble that one of the Danish (correction on my geography anyone?) countries gave them the boot altogether. Yet here we are in America, making place for our sworn enemies (they did the swearing) and they are making plans for our destruction from right here in America. Schools that don't let kids wear caps or hats of any kind are being sued to allow burquas. Prisons are re-plumbing toilets to respect Mecca. This is our tax dollars, people! I like our freedom and protection of worship, but this goes beyond the pale. I truly believe that Islam should be declared a Political Organization because they swear vengance on all Non Believers - per their Koran.

I can see how Religion can be feared in this Country. Maybe we should take the plaque off the Statue of Liberty: we've run out of room for immigrants who come here to take, take, take. And the legislators who chose which laws to enforce should be recalled. For example: legislators who confuse the words "illegal" with "undocumented" and Federal auditors confusing a balance sheet's "difference" with major fraud.

Oops, I brought in the "R" word... But this rant is really aimed at the majority of American politicians. Americans, please try to get your news from a variety of sources, and tune into Fox News, logon to NumbersUSA.com and investigate teamtancredo.org.

Hmm, says I. First off, those two "letters." They appear to be based entirely on logical fallacy, misuse of facts, and flatly incorrect information.

But then, I gather that the purpose of the letter is not to inform but to appeal to base emotions. The goal is obvious: scare the reader into action.

What I really don't like is the personal slander. Pelosi is just the latest target for personal flaming. She's anti ____ (enter stuff you love here) and pro ____ (enter stuff you hate here). Horrible! She's even from San Francisco, and you know what that means!

Come on.

Now, granted, I have few kind words to say about George W. Bush. But there is a big difference; I attack him for what he does, not for who he is. His blunders and mistakes have caused great damage; there’s no need to focus on anything else about him. Political argument does not and should not require personal attacks.

The question I have is this: why did the author of this letter choose the path of fear, slander, and intimidation instead of simply dispersing fact? If he/she felt the need to make a point, why not go by the book: state a thesis and support it with factual argument?

Is the reason perhaps this: when you are a muck-raker, there's no need to worry about making factually accurate statements since emotion is the only thing being targeted?

I think that most of us can agree that generally speaking, politics in the U.S. could be changed for the better. So why do we fall into the same patterns? For example: Congress changed hands. Apparently most Americans were not happy with the job the ousted party was doing. Those who still support the ousted party can A, figure out what went wrong and try to fix it; or B, try and scare the heck out of enough people to get more politicians of their favored party back in office. The trouble with B is it never analyzes, let alone solves, what went wrong in the first place.

"Steps taken forward, then sleepwalking back again." A quote from Pink Floyd's song "High Hopes," off the album The Division Bell.



Immigration is synonymous with invasion?

Anywhere in the world that you have a situation with an economically weak nation, its people are going to try and move somewhere they can have better lives for themselves and their families. Here we have another emotional snare; "be afraid, those Mexicans want to take over your country!" The underlying cause of the immigration is not ill will; it's simple human need.

Have you ever considered what it might be like to be able to provide very little more than basic survival for your kids with no improvement in your situation in the foreseeable future?

Ironic that while you "don't believe in world economics," world economics is simply unavoidable. Also, one might argue that the best way to stem immigration into our country along it's southern boarder is not walls (ie, increasing overall social tension) but to stabilize the economy in Mexico (ie, two birds with one stone).

Besides, look out MaraM, pretty soon Americans will have to immigrate to Canada to get heath care!

Just kidding.




There are well over a billion Muslims in the world; only a tiny fraction support the use violence. As we have discussed in other threads, and as Seafox has pointed out, religion can be twisted into practically any violent purpose. While there are groups that appear to be motivated completely by religious fanaticism, most are in fact using religion toward political, social, and economic goals; ie, in the way that religion has been used since its conception.

But here we are once again; a group of people you can't come to terms with, and thus, the emotional snare snaps down as the adherents of an entire religion are demonized.





Ah, the lovely contradictions between classical economics and Christian principles...

Are all programs that feed the hungry and heal the sick "Christian" principle based?

Can't non-Christians support such programs? Don't some?

Are we really talking about lovely contradictions between classical economics and "do-gooders" in general?

Why single out Christians?

Just wonderin'.



Ah, then one can "attack" Pelosi, too, since her blunders and mistakes cause great damage, too. Seems reasonable.

The contradiction I am speaking of is the general link between social and economic conservatives. Generally speaking, social conservatives tend to be openly Christian also tend to be economic conservatives.

Again, generally.

It just seems so odd to me. Jesus supposedly said we should give to the poor and that rich people have very little chance of going to Heaven (something about a camel passing through the eye of a needle) ect. Yet economic conservatives adhere to the classical school of economics, which is driven by self-interest (ie, get rich, baby, get rich). Most economic conservatives believe that giving money to the poor, at least, via the government, is not only a waste of tax dollars but ultimately causes dependency on government services rather than fostering independence. Jesus never made such an observation, that I am aware; he believed that if there were poor you should simply help them.

These are but a few of the contradictions I am talking about. I only "pick on" Christianity since the inconsistencies between it and its "bedfellow" are so blatant. Apparently some of this contradiction was created in Dickens' day, where the prevailing thought was that the rich are rich because they are good and being rewarded by g(G)od; the converse being though of as truth as well. But of course, this line of thinking was no doubt conceived by the rich...



That's exactly right! That is precisely what you should do! But you can examine her "blunders and mistakes that have caused great damage" with analytical analysis supported by facts...rather than simply suggesting that she's an immoral person because she's from San Fransisco, can't you?

Hi Locally pwned,

Which is better? Giving money to a person who is poor and getting them dependent on that money, or giving them some money and job training in a trade or profession that will allow them to support themselves. The latter choice is what welfare was intended to do. However, due to human nature (i.e. the tendency to not give up the free handout), welfare has become the first choice. There are many that have been on welfare that will game the system so that they don't have to work at all. There are those that have been on welfare that have gotten the training that is available to welfare recipients and through that training have gotten off of welfare assistance because they don't need it any more. Others just look at it as a free ride. To me, the best course of action is to help the poor with the money that they need through welfare (just as Jesus would) then require that person to be trained in a trade or profession and put in a job in that profession that could support them and get them off of welfare (conservative value). The problem is that many people when they see the free ride, don't want to get off of it.


Seafox14

Yes,

I can.

And do.

However, I might say that she's an "immoral person and she's from San Francisco"!

Oh, how I love to stir the pot. Let's get off the San Francisco thing... it's just a sentence I failed to delete from the letter. Why hasn't anybody picked up on her travels to enemy countries? Why doesn't Mexico feed its own people? It is a country of wealth that just hasn't been mined. I believe there is oil there... And if you look at the number of ILLEGAL ALIENS coming to this country every day, getting welfare from forms translated into Spanish, suing the US if they die of thirst in the desert...

Yes, the Country voted Democrat in the last election it was the only thing we could do to kick the prez off the throne and act more like one third of the country's leadership. But what do the Dems stand for? Radical left liberalism is all about changing America's moral standards to having no moral standards.

Families comprised of a mother and father are given benefits by the government for the sake of the children. I have no problem with legal partnerships between homosexuals, but please do not call it Marriage!!! I am sorry but it disgusts me to see two men or two women getting married and kissing. I wish they had stayed in the closet.

I got more attacks from being Christian and nobody seemed to notice that Islam wants to kill all non believers. And as a Christian, I request (insist) that you use Our Savior's name with respect or not at all. Those who have barely a hint of Christianity claim to know what Jesus would do... c'mon, let's ask when we do not know. Jesus was a man but He is also God. His teachings are so fine that if we all loved and looked after each other we would have a very pleasant world. But evil does exist, and it must be recognized and fought off.

So what is the reason for America's increasing immorality? Failure to act like a nation of laws that made us great for 200 years? The evolution of our Society in the 1960's when black Americans finally won their rightful place in our society was a great achievement. So why should we hand our country over to those who do not want to be Americans. Why are the liberals pushing the majority aside to honor immorality? Why are we letting them?

And as mad as I am at our Prez, he is the Prez, and people like John Kerry with his foul mouth saying anything to get elected dishonors our country and led to the change of our stature in the world. It is unfortunate that we did not research Islam before we tried to "give" democracy to a people who don't want it enough to fight for it themselves? I saw them close up their shops in preparation for the attack on the Human Aid workers who were murdered in Fallujah, their bodies dessecrated...

How many of you Americans reading this enjoy watching your precious immigrants flying their countrie's flags and burning ours? If that doesn't bother you then you are part of the problem.

C'mon now stay on point and EXCUUUZZZZE ME for the San Francisco thing. I've never even been there but it looks like a really pretty city. Hope it doesn't fall in the Ocean while Pelosi is there...

People who dont know whats right and wrong can say anything is right.

Look at other cultures vs america.

The Bible is our true guide to whats right and wrong.

You cant just follow the crowd and think its right because they do it.

I think thats why you see people doing immoral acts today. You get a culture that does so much stuff they find nothing wrong or shocking because they are just so used to it. Thats a sad state to be in.



Whats that mean?

Quote: The Bible is our true guide to what is right and wrong"

I honestly think it's lovely to have a Faith to guide one ... but perhaps the above sentence may be better said, "For Christians, the Bible is our true guide to what is right and wrong" - gentle smile.

Moral codes and ethics can be - and are - strong in many, many people with different nationalities, religious beliefs and sexuality and even political beliefs.

When I read some of the latest postings in this topic, I do wonder - not about the people posting, rather about how we each arrive at what we consider "immoral acts".

For each of us, we have different views of what an immoral act may be.

For myself, I don't consider being a non-Christian an immoral act. Nor sunbathing nude on a beach, should a beach be designated for that use. Yet, I have very strong beliefs of what is 'moral' and 'immoral' - and, I suspect, most of us have varying ideas of what is 'right' and 'wrong'.

Re: (Quote) I have no problem with legal partnerships between homosexuals, but please do not call it Marriage!!! I am sorry but it disgusts me to see two men or two women getting married and kissing. I wish they had stayed in the closet.

To many who share love and lives together, their union performed in a Church of their chosen Faith is a marriage. Honestly. And two people showing 'excessive' physical affection in public is, for me at least, always a tad embarassing - but surely not because two people are of the same sex.

Re: (Quote) Christian, I request (insist) that you use Our Savior's name with respect or not at all.
... yet I also read, (Quote) nobody seemed to notice that Islam wants to kill all non believers.

Hmmm. I would hope everyone would treat each other's Faith with respect. Although I'm sure no harm was intended, we have at least one member who is of the Islamic faith - and surely to be lumped in together with the small fraction of scary members of this faith must be hurtful indeed. Gentle sigh.

Perhaps one of the problems found in a discussion regarding "increasing Acceptance of Immoral Ethics' is it's a pretty large general topic - and with no specifics as to examples, it's very difficult to address.

Aristotle echoes Plato when he writes that no person willingly preforms an action he considers to be immoral. It would seem, therefore, that all men are moral at least in that general sense, and it does seem the case that the moral rules they actually follow vary from time to time and place to place. It is a different question, though, whether laws actually [follow/derive themselves/reflect]any particular ethics, and whether they should do so.

Now ethics as such is a practical branch of philosophy, since it attempts to provide a guide for action. It does so in two ways. If it is didactive, ethics attempts to provide a series of rules for action and to justify their adoption, asking the question, what moral rules ought we to have.
It may, secondly, turn on itself and attempt to provide a clearing where thinking about ethics and its meaning for existents can take place. Ethics will then ask such questions as:

1. Why does a particular man in fact obey a moral rule?
2. What sort of reasons does that individual give for obeying it on that occasion?
3. Why should a man obey a rule at that time, i.e., does morality or a moral rule apply on that occasion?
4. Why do people actually have the moral rules they do, i.e., what is the history or origin of these rules?

Regards,
John

Well, at least you have it narrowed down to your personal opinion about one individual, which you are of course entitled to. But you know what they say about opinions…

By the way John, I love your quote...



1. The San Francisco bit just happened to be one of my favorites from the letter; I couldn't help but comment on it. However, even if you had cut out all of such blatantly emotional statements, I believe my general criticisms of the piece still stand.

2. Are you talking about Syria? This is not technically an "enemy nation" at the present time. I imagine you are "making the leap" because Syria is primarily an Islamic state and you have stated many times that you believe all adherents of Islam to be your enemy.

3. Mexico is a nation in which the vast amount of its wealth is controlled by a tiny fraction of the population. In my opinion this is largely due to it's history of weak unions, weak regulation, and corrupt governments (everyone:my knowledge of Mexican history is shady, so feel free to "slay" me on the this if I my memory has failed me. Unless, that is, you simply disagree with my economic point of view, in which case I would be more than happy to debate economic policy in another thread).

One other thought: natural resources alone don't determine the wealth of a country. Many places in the world have resources but no ability to translate those resources into economic expansion. Lack of political stability, lack of capital, various social issues, and many other factors might contribute to the stagnation of a nation’s economy.

4. I believe a thread already exists on the subject of illegal immigration, so I won’t go into this one here.



All Democrats are radicals?

As we keep reminding ourselves, politics these days can be pretty gruesome...it would be nice if we didn't make assumptions about politicians based simply on their official political orientation. I would certainly not assume that all Republicans are extremists. Perhaps one day we will learn simply to examine the stance a politician takes on a given issue rather than passing judgment at the first sight of the "R" or "D" next to his/her name.



In fact, I have studied many religions and cultures, including the "Big 3" (ie, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam). World religion is something of an interest to me. Please do not assume that I am ignorant on the topic of Christianity simply because I am not an adherent of the religion.

Anyway, when I refer to the words of Jesus I refer to the words of a historical figure. Are any of the statements I made incorrect? If so, please point out my specific errors. I have no problem what so ever being corrected if I were to use erroneous data while making an argument; in fact I encourage it. How else can one learn?

But with all due respect, I don't see how you'd have the right to tell me that I can't quote the words of a figure from history. I don’t believe I have been disrespectful; if I have caused offense, it certainly was not intentional.


* I have in fact, in my many conversations with Christians, experienced the converse of your statement. That is, someone who "knows Christianity" (ie refers to him/herself as a Christian) yet knows almost nothing about his/her religion or its history.




I completely agree with you here, Seafox. In fact, I might go so far as to suggest that fundamentally speaking, many people, whether liberal or conservative, would also agree.

The trouble lies in the execution of a welfare system. I am going to use some huge generalities here, just to examine the problem that lies in the implementation of welfare. A basic premise we all go on: everyone knows that while there are some welfare recipients that truly need help and use the system to get back on their feet, there are also those who, as you say, intend milk the system. The "average liberal" looks at the needs of the poor and assumes that even though there are individuals who would exploit the system, we must still provide the safety net for those who truly need help. The "average conservative" might suggest that the net itself ultimately causes people to exploit the system, and thus we should reduce or remove the net.*

The point is that both sides agree on the general goal, but the trick is finding the right balance between direct assistance and training to maximize the number of people who rejoin productive society. Instead of working together to find this balance, we get side tracked and both sides use the issue to tarnish the overall political perspective of the other. At such times it would be useful to re-read JohnWho's quote...


*There are those who might argue for the complete removal of all welfare from a purely economic viewpoint; such a person might disregard the social and/or moral arguments all together. However, I don't believe this represents the average person.

I didn't say I "would" say that, I said I "might".

I don't know for sure if she is immoral or not, however, perhaps back in her younger days I might have been willing to contribute to her immorality.

If one is from San Francisco, then they are from San Francisco. A fact is a fact, at least until the main stream media gets hold of it.

I think she is alluding to the fact that there are few Iraqi leaders who are really taking the reigns. Democracy (the Republic fashion of the US) is truly a novel governmental style within the history of civilization. Thus, it should come as no surprise that it is not receiving the full support of Iraqis. This is a nation of people who have been under Theocratic/Monastic Rule for centuries.

Many citizens of Iraq want democracy no more than many citizens of the US. Most simply want to be told what to do and when to do it, that stability re-enforces there sense of security.

Truth be told, I don't think the overwhelming majority of Iraq's Citizens desire Democracy, as it demands vigilance and a cohesion of leaders to do what is in the best interests of the nation. However, the religous seperatism dominant in the region is not conducive to such a governmental process. About the only thing the religous leaders in Iraq can agree on is that they want the US out of the area. Unfortunately, the elected Government of Iraq fears the power-vacuum that will ensue.

Wait till the MySpace Generation hits the Workforce

The Myspace Generation

Slashdot - The Myspace Generation

Wait until the Myspace generation is in Congress...

Has any one else read "Bushido - The Code of The Samurai" by Inazo Nitobe. It realy places this thread into context. The book written in the late 19th century examines the ethics of feudal Japan and compares them to the Christian culture of the west. the findings in this book mirror what is going on in modern times. Which is to say that morals and ethics cannot be taught without a backdrop such as Christianity or Bushido.

Excellent observation, Black Spyder. Where else WOULD we get our ideas of morals. Let's look at some definitions from dictionary.com. I think we'll see much ado about our politicians:

"immoral
adjective
1. deliberately violating accepted principles of right and wrong [ant: moral]
2. not adhering to ethical or moral principles; "base and unpatriotic motives"; "a base, degrading way of life"; "cheating is dishonorable"; "they considered colonialism immoral"; "unethical practices in handling public funds" [syn: base]
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University. "

"im·mor·al·ly, adverb
—Synonyms bad, wicked, dissolute, dissipated, profligate. Immoral, abandoned, depraved describe one who makes no attempt to curb self-indulgence. Immoral, referring to conduct, applies to one who acts contrary to or does not obey or conform to standards of morality; it may also mean licentious and perhaps dissipated. Abandoned, referring to condition, applies to one hopelessly, and usually passively, sunk in wickedness and unrestrained appetites. Depraved, referring to character, applies to one who voluntarily seeks evil and viciousness. Immoral, amoral, nonmoral, and unmoral are sometimes confused with one another. Immoral means not moral and connotes evil or licentious behavior. Amoral, nonmoral, and unmoral, virtually synonymous although the first is by far the most common form, mean utterly lacking in morals (either good or bad), neither moral nor immoral. However, since, in some contexts, there is a stigma implicit in a complete lack of morals, being amoral, nonmoral, or unmoral is sometimes considered just as reprehensible as being immoral.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. "

"mor·al –adjective
1. of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
...
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
5. conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
6. virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
...
–noun 9. the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
10. the embodiment or type of something.
11. morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

—Related forms
mor·al·less, adjective
—Synonyms
5. upright, honest, straightforward, open, virtuous, honorable.
11. integrity, standards, morality. Morals, ethics refer to rules and standards of conduct and practice. Morals refers to generally accepted customs of conduct and right living in a society, and to the individual's practice in relation to these: the morals of our civilization. Ethics now implies high standards of honest and honorable dealing, and of methods used, esp. in the professions or in business: ethics of the medical profession.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
yano, we Flower Children used to think that about ourselves and yet cannabis is still illegal even though it has been studied by Economists who say the cost of keeping it illegal is a waste; a government study in 1972 said it was not a dangerous substance; and the US is currently importing the stuff to make a perfect protein, clothing, and wood-like products rather than using trees; medicines to treat a variety of illnesses yet the DEA can still arrest a patient with a prescription.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

BG04, right on. The Middle East is living in ancient Theocracies that have not willingly evolved. Many Iraqis have begun to stand up for their right to evolve toward a more modern culture, and are paying the price with their lives. Unfortunately, American lives are still being lost even though the concept has been well-introduced.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I too liked the "However, I might say that she's an "immoral person and she's from San Francisco"! quote. But Pelosi is visiting the Middle East against the wishes of the Secretary of State (Rice). She leans way too far left for my thinking and it is the liberals who are changing and destroying our culture.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I like to think I respect all religions as well. But the Koran teaches Jihad which is murder which is immoral and therefore I think of it more as a Political Organization. Our American Hero Muhammed Ali was a peaceful example for America, he came along just at the right time in our history. But he came from a middle-class, American-schooled culture. Muslims from the Middle East keeping women masked and at home without a chaperone and killing their daughters who have disgraced their families is hardly a path American women would want to revert - although we were never treated so poorly. Therefore, I see Islam as a Political Organization, especially when there is civil war among its own practitioners. Even Catholic Nuns changed their habits (manner of dress) for comfort and blending in. I feel so sorry to see women dressed in black from head to toe, living in a desert, while the men are allowed to wear white cotton shirts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

A Muslim (first name Keith) was elected to Congress. He was sworn in by Pelosi with his hand on the Koran. His sons were at the ceremony, but there were no women present. As a new member, he called the Capitol Police on one of his colleagues rather than meeting with him face to face. Is this the American way? Or are we going to backpeddle our culture some more?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Using the Name of Jesus was not directed at anyone personally here. I am just hearing His Name thrown around without respect.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Lastly, we ARE being invaded, but I am not saying we should go to war with Mexico. I do wonder who poisoned the crops in California and who poisoned the dog food all over America. Please see YouTube presentation by NumbersUSA.com leader. Soon there will be more illegal aliens than Americans in this Country. We do not have the resources to feed all these people. America gives aid (free money) to almost every country in the world, even those who burn our flag when our Prez visits, so that is not an excuse for anyone to come here illegally. If I am not mistaken, Canada likes to know the educational level and intended CONTRIBUTION to Canadian society from their immigrants. Is that still true, Mara? This is an important overview of the impact on America. I am old enough to remember America's decision for zero-population growth to protect our resources and their availability for our children. Instead, our children cannot get into college or find a job because our government does not carry out the will of the American people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Does anyone think that monopolies and price-fixing and treason are no longer prosecuted? I saw a documentary that political problems in America stem from a constant election cycle, and the candidates attack each other so harshly that the other guy is evil, mean, cruel and nasty; while the world watches and believes. And the only way to win an election is with money: so big business is running the Country, not the will of the People.

With love and best regards from 60% conservative and 40% liberal
joygreen

Wow!

Me too!

Those exact same proportions -

I'm conservative most of the time, (60%)

but

I'm liberal in the bedroom!

AMEN!

Yar!



You know, I have struggled with this myself. I have a hard time with inequality of any sort. Oppression of women occurs in more places than it doesn't. I don't think it is right or even possible to superimpose our own take on morality in other countries; I believe the best solution is education. Education is anti-oppression; that's why, historically speaking, oppressors always keep those they oppress as ignorant and illiterate as possible.

But then, what about students I have seen at my college, female students covered from head to toe? In our country there is no law that would force a woman to follow such customs. So, these women are choosing to behave in this way. Is one oppressed if one chooses to be oppressed? What if one is unaware that he/she is oppressed in the first place?

I would also like to add that even in Western nations, we are not yet "enlightened." I went to an Evangelical wedding a few years ago. Now, I had been to plenty of religious weddings over the years, both Protestant and Catholic; but this took the cake. For example, in the vows, the groom was to "lead her (the bride) according g(G)od's laws; the bride was to submit to him (the groom) according to the laws of g(G)od. Yes, they used the words "lead" and "submit." In a nutshell, by the end of the ceremony it seemed to me as if the true purpose of the wedding was not to bond two equals but simply to shift ownership of the bride from the father to the husband.

I can't help but ask, why would this bride (and many others like her) accept such treatment? Was she simply brought up this way from childhood and didn't know better? Did the specific way in which she was raised prevent her from learning the tools to analyze her position in society? Is it the same situation as the women at the college?



How do you know that no women were present specifically because of his religion?

Would it make any sense for him to be sworn with his hand on a book from a religion he doesn't adhere to? What, by the way, should an atheist be sworn in on? Or do you think it should it be illegal for any non-Christian to be allowed to take public office?



I am guessing that the elements of the "40% liberal" part are mostly economic and environmental? It's interesting that many Christian groups that are traditionally both social and economic conservatives are beginning to see conservative economics (ie the classical school) as incompatible with Christianity; they are beginning to see the contradiction I was talking about earlier. Workers rights, health care for families, livable wages and the dwindling middle class, corporate social responsibility, environmental issues, the list goes on.

*This line I agree with.



1: I think that deep down, what Iraqis want is the same thing we all want: political and economic stability and the ability to simply live their lives unhindered. The irony is that we take such stability for granted. We also have come to assume that the only style of government that can provide such stability is our own. The point is that the average Iraqi, as you say, does not have a history of such government; so they make no such assumption. Since stability is the real goal, I think they care less about the specific form of government that can produce it as long as it is produced.

I remember reading an article in National Geographic about the current state of Vietnam. Even though the Vietnamese are under the rule of a generally communist government,* the fact that they have had political stability for a number of years has been an important one. You see, Vietnam has known very few periods of stability in its long history; for many centuries the Chinese tried and tried again to conquer the nation. For about two centuries, Vietnam was controlled by France. Then, not long after the French left, the "American War" began. So the fact that the Vietnamese people can live something resembling a "normal life" is in fact a big step.

Again, I think in the West we take such things for granted; that is why it is so vitally important to understand the history of an area before we get involved.

2 and 3. Interesting thought. For the US citizens you speak of, I think this is driven by fear; fear that is deliberately exasperated by the sort of politicians who want such power. For the Iraqis, again, I think that since so many of them have never lived under true self-governance, they don't automatically see this system as "the method" to achieve the way of life they want. Especially when it would require a separation of church and state. There are plenty of people in the US that don't see this separation as positive or even necessary. So imagine it in a country that has known nothing but totalitarian rule?




*Though Vietnam is run by a single-party government such as the one in China, and though it has limited political and social freedom, it has gotten more "lax" on its economic policy and has begun to incorporate certain market-driven elements. As a result, the country is doing much better than say, North Korea, which still holds on to Soviet-style economics.

I'm having trouble making those quotes work...

"Would it make any sense for him to be sworn with his hand on a book from a religion he doesn't adhere to? What, by the way, should an atheist be sworn in on? Or do you think it should it be illegal for any non-Christian to be allowed to take public office? "

Ya know what? I might prefer Athiests (like Mara) in office. Then we wouldn't have Roe v Wade being threatened by the Religious Right. (Is this what I think, LP? You confuse me with your mindreading).

Women in America were oppressed in America until ww2, when they went to work to make bullets for the war. Prior to that, as a woman aged, and her husband found some bimbo at the office, he could divorce his wife and leave her in poverty. Didn't you read about the Muslim man in America who murdered his daughter for having sex outside marriage? That congressman most surely showed this Country that he is here to be an orthodox Muslim by leaving his wife and daughters at home. I have seen the traditional Muslim garb on a woman who was taken to the supermarket by her husband. she had to ask him about every purchase, and was never more than three steps away from him. He might as well have had a leash on her.

NO I don't want that kind of oppression in America. As it is, women are still making less money than men for the same job, and it is an old boy's network out there. If you cannot put two and two together to see that Congressman fooled the constituents into voting for him by using a name like keith, you are missing something, my dear...

And please stop trying to read my mind b/c I do not think you will guess correctly. Are you surprised that I am pro choice? Damm right I am. Now don't get me wrong, I like men, but I am not about to let the pendulum swing back to nail my daughter into some abusive relationship. And wearing black from head to toe in the desert is abuse for sure. I wonder if those women are allowed to cut their hair?

I am glad we all found so much in common. Wouldn't it be fun to make a list of issues and have us each vote for and against? I think that's where I found out how "liberal" I am. But I want my freedom in my country, in my backyard and in my home. And because we are not protecting our culture, we are losing freedoms that were so well earned.

xoxo
joyus cannabis greenus

Firstly joygreen the quotes work like this and if you wish to add the speakers name its

Secondly I was not intending to start a Anti vs Pro Religion Hijack of the thread. But for those of you who know a little about late 19th - early 20th century Japanese history that time was where the old ways were thrown down in favor of the new ways and created quite a stir as the Japanese had no real form on which to base morals on once Bushido was gone. Bushido was not a religion but rather a lifestyle like Victorian. The Japanese had to find a new basis for morality which is where we in the US are today with many young adults such as myself leaving the religious backgrounds on which we were raised to start over with out the strict rules and disciplines of religion but still trying to maintain the order and morality in our children that we have it will take a few generations to get it right but then again this has been going on since the 60's so.............

The problem with figuring if something is immoral depends on who you ask.

What seems moral to me, may seem immoral to you. Example, I am for Stem Cell Research. If you ask Bush he would say it's immoral. You can't define what is moral and tell someone it is moral.

Morality is like religion, one must make their own choice based on what they BELIEVE in. No one person's morality or religion (for the matter of fact) is correct or even better than the next.

"No one person's morality or religion (for the matter of fact) is correct or even better than the next."

I think this is a very curious statement. If I were to adhere to, for example, the moral conviction that slavery was justified, or that it was perfectly moral to multilate female genitalia to increase the pleasure of the man, or to advocate the killing of innocent children who were born defective, or to believe it was a moral act to exterminate all Jews in Europe, then these moral rules would be as good as for example, the tenet that one should act to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number or to love one's neighbor as oneself, or to so act that anyone would act as you do.

While there may be no absolute way of determining which moral rule is better, there are certainly practical, existential, and (at least to me) rationally convincing arguments that some moral tenets are indeed better than others.

Regards,
John

Regards,
John

1. Sorry, the bit about "atheists in office" was an unsuccessful attempt at a joke to lighten the mood a bit.

2. I just don't know enough about the guy to assume this was the reason.

3a. We agree here.

3b. Perhaps he used the name "Keith" because it really is just his name?

4. I never claimed to read your mind. If I am guessing too often, I apologize and I will try not to do so in the future.

5. I am not surprised you are pro-choice; I wouldn't assume to know your stance on abortion as we have not discussed the issue. There are many things I would not simply assume; for example, I would not assume that because you are a Christian you therefore believe that the earth is only 6000 years old.

---------

BlackSpyder, do you believe then that a society can't have morality without one overriding "backdrop," one model to follow?

It is interesting that you bring up Bushido and contrast the modernization of Japan with the social upheaval in the US in the 60s. I had never thought to compare the two quite like that. As important as the civil rights movements were, and as many lasting effects as they wrought, I think that the change in Japanese society was perhaps even larger and, relatively speaking, more sudden (considering that Bushido and feudalism had existed almost unchanged for many centuries).

----------



Such as quantifying the results of actions? For example, the amount of human suffering...does a given choice, action or policy increase or decrease human suffering?

Wasn't it John Stuart Mill who tried to quantify pleasure and pain? The "rightness" or "wrongness"of an act was determined by the net amount of pleasure or pain it resulted in, respectively?

To answer the first part no, but there has to be a guideline to start with. We (the USA) relied on religion to guide our base laws when we formed our country and it was religion for a long time that guided our morality it is not so now. This time comes for all countries (some sooner some later).

To give an example I cut metal with a torch everyday. I always mark the straight line I want to cut. If I were to one day decide to stop marking the straight line and just cut I would waver left and right away from the true straight for a while until I learned to cut without my guideline. At that point I'd be a better torch operator then I was to start with.

We (the USA) are in the stage of doing away with the line and learning to guide our morality without it.

To the second part I was mearly using the similarity of the two instances to show that it is not a fast process and that there are many detours along the way.

And, men and women of no faith, too.