The Changing Moral Landscape

[Occams Barber]

That's an interesting point about mandatory reporting. Maybe it is something new; the idea that it is good and right to compel that action...

I thought you were supposed to be having the day off.
OB

 

[Paidiske]

I am not sure about this but at one time it was expected to dress nice for Church and now you can dress any old way to go to Church.

Is that part of a general decrease in formality, overall?

I thought you were supposed to be having the day off.
OB

I am. I'm sitting here in my pyjamas (you needed to know that, didn't you?) pondering in which order I'm going to do my day-off things.

 

[Tutorman]

Is that part of a general decrease in formality, overall?

Yes I think so

 

[hedrick]

I believe the modern analysis behind informed consent, with the associated concerns about power imbalance, is a major advance in itself. It shouldn't be buried in children's and women's rights.

 

[Occams Barber]

I am not sure about this but at one time it was expected to dress nice for Church and now you can dress any old way to go to Church.

Hello Tutorman
Dressing for Church is more of a church specific issue. I'm looking for rule changes which affect society as a whole. Your issue is probably covered under the heading of 'Modesty' which is in the list.
OB

 

[hedrick]

This probably fits under the general idea of Prohibiting Torture which is something I need to add.

I was thinking of corporal punishment of kids. It's not really reasonable to consider that torture. Indeed the whole concept of punishment is beginning to be suspect, though I don’t think that’s widely enough accepted to put in your list.

 

[Occams Barber]

Is that part of a general decrease in formality, overall?

See Modesty

I am. I'm sitting here in my pyjamas (you needed to know that, didn't you?) pondering in which order I'm going to do my day-off things.

I recommend starting with the washing followed by vacuuming. I always start with the washing on my days off. That way the washing can wash while I'm vacuuming. It's called multi-tasking.

Did I mention that I really love vacuuming?

(Don't thank me - you're welcome)
OB

 

[Occams Barber]

I was thinking of corporal punishment of kids. It's not really reasonable to consider that torture. Indeed the whole concept of punishment is beginning to be suspect, though I don’t think that’s widely enough accepted to put in your list.

Sorry Hedrick. I thought you were talking about corporal punishment for adults.

If you go back to post #74 you'll see my response on the general subject of child abuse and corporal punishment (I see hitting kids as a form of child abuse). I proposed putting it under the general heading of Children's Rights.

UPDATE
Just noticed your post #84. Can you think of a term which would cover it ?
OB

 

[RDKirk]

Thanks PS

There's a whole area here around the status of women which I've missed and which needs to be worked into the list. Part of the problem is identifying discrete items. Sometimes what seems to be a single issue can be like a Russian doll - open it up and there are more issues inside.

So, for instance; Does Spousal Abuse sit within the larger 'doll' of Female Equality or is it separate? Are Women's Rights the same as the Rights of a Spouse? If I open the 'doll' of Female Equality I can see smaller dolls like Equal Pay and Equal Opportunity. Any ideas would be appreciated. This is an area where society and Christianity can differ.

I think 'Children's Rights' can probably go into the list. There are some Christians here who still believe its OK (or even desirable) to hit a child although I don't see it as a view widely held within Christianity.

Note to Self: would the UN Charter of Human Rights be a good reference source??
OB

Well, we know that spouse abuse, the Tolerance Movement, and Women's Suffrage were all connected in the US because the people involved at the time said so.

 

[Occams Barber]

I would argue that the big reason Christianity has lost moral authority is because visible Christians were so consistently on the wrong side. Of course this isn't true of all Christians, but the Bible was used to defend slavery, racial discrimination, gender discrimination, and discrimination against gays and transgenders.

Until fairly recently, Christians tended to be associated with moral advances. That was surely that case in Roman times, and I think also in absorbing the "barbarians" after Rome. Even in more recent times, Christians took the lead in caring for sick and others who couldn't care for themselves.

Until recently, polls shows that non-Christians might think Christians were deluding themselves about God, but at least they were good people. Today for the first time, non-Christians tend to think of Christians as opposing moral standards.

We appear to be on a similar wavelength (at least on this topic).

I'm in the middle of developing a thread starter based on what I call 'Christian Privilege'. The argument is that Christianity, once the leading moral force, is now so far behind that it actually has been given, or is asking for, the right to behave badly when compared to the rest of society. This includes various forms of discrimination, mysogyny, insulting minorities and special exclusions. Basically a range of behaviours, which would not be tolerated in secular society, justified on the basis of nothing more than Biblical fiat or Christian tradition.

I'm not sure I'll publish the post but it's helped to focus my thinking.
OB

 

[RDKirk]

We appear to be on a similar wavelength (at least on this topic).

I'm in the middle of developing a thread starter based on what I call 'Christian Privilege'. The argument is that Christianity, once the leading moral force, is now so far behind that it actually has been given, or is asking for, the right to behave badly when compared to the rest of society. This includes various forms of discrimination, mysogyny, insulting minorities and special exclusions. Basically a range of behaviours, which would not be tolerated in secular society, justified on the basis of nothing more than Biblical fiat or Christian tradition.

I'm not sure I'll publish the post but it's helped to focus my thinking.
OB

I'd point out that "Christianity" is a whole lot larger than what you see in America. I've spent time in fellowship with Christians in Asian countries where Christianity has never been the default religion, and discovered an entirely difference character of believer. This was nearly as significant for me as Malcolm X's pilgrimage to Mecca was to him in demonstrating "Islam" as he knew it compared to Islam as the rest of the world practiced it. Malcolm was on point about Christianity in the US--but Christianity in the US is not clearly representative of Christ, which Malcolm no more understood than he understood the difference between the Black Muslims and how Islam was practiced in the rest of the world.

What happened in the US is that a certain cultural gang has held power in the US since its inception and that gang's power is now being threatened. But Jesus has never been their way of life, Jesus has merely been one of their gang signs.

 

[Occams Barber]

I'd point out that "Christianity" is a whole lot larger than what you see in America. I've spent time in fellowship with Christians in Asian countries where Christianity has never been the default religion, and discovered an entirely difference character of believer. This was nearly as significant for me as Malcolm X's pilgrimage to Mecca was to him in demonstrating "Islam" as he knew it compared to Islam as the rest of the world practiced it. Malcolm was on point about Christianity in the US--but Christianity in the US is not clearly representative of Christ, which Malcolm no more understood than he understood the difference between the Black Muslims and how Islam was practiced in the rest of the world.

What happened in the US is that a certain cultural gang has held power in the US since its inception and that gang's power is now being threatened. But Jesus has never been their way of life, Jesus has merely been one of their gang signs.

I'm surprised to see you trotting out the "No True Scotsman" argument to demonstrate that American Christians aren't really Christians (BTW - I'm not American).

Whether or not Asian or African Christian minorities represent 'true Christianity' is beside the point. Western society has moved on and left Western Christianity trailing in its wake when it comes to moral values. Many (most?) Churches don't allow women in their leadership positions (priests, pastors, bishops etc.) successfully combining employment discrimination with misogyny. Many churches won't employ gays or people of other religions in their institutions (schools, aged care etc.) despite the fact that religion or sexual preference is unrelated to the job. Some Christians expect the right to discriminate when providing goods or services. Some Christians proclaim themselves exempt from reporting child abuse. Some Christians expect that their version of the Creation Story should be taught as scientific fact. Some Christians have, with breathtaking arrogance, ignored child abuse and flouted the law.

I could go on. The point is that Christianity is now outside the moral tent looking in and expecting special permission to behave badly.
OB

 

[RDKirk]

I'm surprised to see you trotting out the "No True Scotsman" argument to demonstrate that American Christians aren't really Christians (BTW - I'm not American).

I'm surprised you think I did. Let's look again at what I said:

What happened in the US is that a certain cultural gang has held power in the US since its inception and that gang's power is now being threatened. But Jesus has never been their way of life, Jesus has merely been one of their gang signs.

That doesn't mean Christ isn't real, nor does it mean there aren't real Christians in America.

It means there is a cultural gang in America that has been using Jesus as one of their symbols.

This is something given in scripture as:

As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." -- Romans 2

 

[Occams Barber]

What happened in the US is that a certain cultural gang has held power in the US since its inception and that gang's power is now being threatened. But Jesus has never been their way of life, Jesus has merely been one of their gang signs.

You do realise that this sounds like some kind of weird conspiracy theory?

What does this 'cultural gang do? What's its purpose?

That doesn't mean Christ isn't real, nor does it mean there aren't real Christians in America.

It means there is a cultural gang in America that has been using Jesus as one of their symbols.

OK
There's:

The Cultural Gang
and
The Real Christians​

As far as I can see it's the Real Christians causing the problem. These are also the same Real Christians we have in this country who are also causing the problem - unless the US Cultural Gang has infiltrated Australia and taken control.
OB

 

[Paidiske]

I understand what RDKirk is saying. There are people in positions of power and privilege who claim Christianity, and even use it to wield power and influence, who have no radical personal commitment to the reign of God in Christ, but who use their power and influence - even that gained in the name of Christ - to dominate and exploit. It's not that hard to see that in American society, or even in our own, although I think it's much more muted here.

 

[Occams Barber]

I understand what RDKirk is saying. There are people in positions of power and privilege who claim Christianity, and even use it to wield power and influence, who have no radical personal commitment to the reign of God in Christ, but who use their power and influence - even that gained in the name of Christ - to dominate and exploit. It's not that hard to see that in American society, or even in our own, although I think it's much more muted here.

I accept that there may be some members of the political/industrial class who exploit Christianity for their own nefarious ends but RD has pushed that along to :

• an organised conspiracy....????
• which has been in the US since its inception'....?????
• and represents the public face of all Christians....????
• including those outside the US...????
• who have all chosen to do the things mentioned in Post 92....????
  
• while the real Christians do what?????

Sorry Paidiske. RD's proposition seems to be moving from the sublime to the ridiculous. We are now Beyond The Illuminati.

(NB Have you read post 92 to see where this started?)
OB

 

[Paidiske]

I don't know that it's meant as organised conspiracy, but think about the public face of power in America. Think about how claims to Christianity function (think of how it functions for President Trump); think about how people will vote for claimed Christian identity over and above a policy suite which would enact a Christian agenda.

I think that's the sort of thing he's talking about, and it makes sense to me.

 

[Occams Barber]

I don't know that it's meant as organised conspiracy, but think about the public face of power in America. Think about how claims to Christianity function (think of how it functions for President Trump); think about how people will vote for claimed Christian identity over and above a policy suite which would enact a Christian agenda.

I think that's the sort of thing he's talking about, and it makes sense to me.

I'm going to repeat the points I made in post #92 (in italics) with added commentary:

• Many (most?) Churches don't allow women in their leadership positions (priests, pastors, bishops etc.) successfully combining employment discrimination with misogyny.

This practice goes back through the history of Christianity. Where does a current US conspiracy fit in? Did the Anglican Church escape the conspiracy?

• Many churches won't employ gays or people of other religions in their institutions (schools, aged care etc.) despite the fact that religion or sexual preference is unrelated to the job.

This is particularly predominant in the Catholic system. How do our US conspirators control this?

• Some Christians expect the right to discriminate when providing goods or services.

Typically the wedding cake issue but includes marrying people from outside the faith and/or same sex couples. Involves influencing all church doctrine.

• Some Christians proclaim themselves exempt from reporting child abuse.

So the US conspirators also control the Catholic attitude to the confessional?

• Some Christians expect that their version of the Creation Story should be taught as scientific fact.

Is Fundamentalist Christianity also a product of the political/industrial Christian pretenders. Why would they bother?

• Some Christians have, with breathtaking arrogance, ignored child abuse and flouted the law.

Does the US conspiracy extend to include Catholic Bishops from all over the world?

By the way - This is the short list.

How does some semi-organised coterie of fake US Christians exert all this influence?
OB

 

[Paidiske]

OB, you've introduced the idea of a conspiracy. RDKirk isn't claiming that, nor am I. But I do understand what he's saying about sociology and religion in America.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't think of the list as something cast in concrete so I'm more than willing to see individual items challenged. @RDKirk has already questioned contraception and I'm not sure that he isn't right. If you see something which you believe doesn't qualify as a 'moral' issue I'm happy to listen.

I wasn't complaining about your list - people genuinely mistakenly believed that what people wore was a question of morality.