The Moral Wars

[Matt5]

Or here's a radical thought; if men and women are equal, the same high ideals for sexuality and relationships apply to both. There is no reason why equality between men and women should mean holding everyone to the lowest common denominator.

Yes. Thank you for the reminder.

 

[jayem]

Christianity has always been a defining feature of Western Civilisation and I don't think its concepts can hold without it.

The only Morality is an absolute form. I don't think Christians always know what that is exactly, as we see through a glass darkly, but it remains Absolute. In more Augustinian terms, we look to God.

My issue with setting Christianity (or any religious tradition for that matter) as the basis for moral standards is that it doesn’t seem to work very well. I’m sure you know Pascal’s quote that men never do evil as cheerfully or as completely, as when they do it from religious conviction. How many atrocities were committed on both sides during the Catholic/Protestant wars of the 16th to early 18th centuries? Even though much more than religious doctrine was being contested, Christian belief was easily used by evil men as a cover for their greed and lust for political power. You mentioned slavery was ended by Christianity. But don’t forget that the Bible was also used to justify slavery. And do you think that the Holocaust could have occurred to such a monstrous degree if the European Catholic and Protestant churches hadn’t taught for centuries that Jews were an accursed race, responsible for Jesus’s execution? With some exceptions (like Pastors Bonhoeffer and Niemoller) where were German Christians when their Jewish neighbors were being rounded up at gunpoint and herded into boxcars? Even if the full horrors of Dachau and Auschwitz weren’t known, wouldn’t you think a rational person of good character would have a clue that something here isn’t right? Why didn’t German Christian churches rise up in masse against Hitler and the Nazis? It’s an epic moral failure.

 

[hedrick]

I'm not so sure that it's right to set this as secular vs sacred. Changes in accepted behavior have occurred on a regular basis over the last 2000 years. Change isn't comfortable. People have always used religion to resist change.

There's actually a pretty clear reason for that. Religion is tied to culture. The nature and degree of the tie differs. Christianity and Islam are in principle independent of culture, some other religions less so. There's always been a question in Christian missions of how much we can separate encouraging people to follow Christ vs becoming Europeans. That separation has quite often not been as clear as it should have been. In this context the confusion of the two results in people thinking the Gospel is at risk when really it's attitudes of their culture that are at risk.

Thus there are long-held attitudes towards sex which in principle are not tied to the Gospel, but most Christians don't make that distinction. On the other hand, history says that in the long run changes really do happen, though there are always outliers. (Consider the Amish.) I think most Christians will in the end adapt to the sexual and gender changes, because the Gospel really isn't tied to traditional sexual attitudes whether modern or 1st Cent Jewish. You can see evidence of the change in surveys of Christian attitudes.

 

[stevil]

That is, the "secular" sphere has embraced consent as the ultimate moral criterion, and perhaps even the sole moral criterion, whereas religions tend to be much more cognizant of nature.

I think it comes down to that theists want their rules into law and forced on others regardless if those others belong to that religion or not.
Whereas in the secular sphere, people want people in society to have autonomy and not be forced by government on how to behave in aspects of their private lives.
It doesn't mean that a person who supports a secular society thinks it is moral to divorce or moral to have a same sex marriage. It just means this person doesn't think it should be a punishable crime.
A person who supports a country that allows pro-choice doesn't mean that this person thinks it isn't wrong to have an abortion.


There are other ways to support your "morals" than to enforce them into law.
You can put out adverts, you can publish leaflets, you can have debates and talk to people, try to convince them not to have a same sex marriage or not to end their terminal and painful life or not to divorce or not to take contraceptives.

But putting these things into law, forcing your religious beliefs onto others is creating an unnecessary nanny state, a BIG expensive and corrupt government.
Government is there to support a safe, stable and thriving society. Not to enforce a moral one.

If you want there to be an authority on morality, then leave that up to mums and dads, or religious organisation leaders or ... But don't hand that to politicians.

 

[zippy2006]

Whereas in the secular sphere, people want people in society to have autonomy and not be forced by government on how to behave in aspects of their private lives.

It sounds like you are a Libertarian. That's fine, but Libertarianism makes up a relatively small slice of the secular world. Paidiske began a discussion of the dangers of secular coercion with post #16. If you follow that discussion you will find a great deal on this topic.

 

[stevil]

It sounds like you are a Libertarian. That's fine, but Libertarianism makes up a relatively small slice of the secular world. Paidiske began a discussion of the dangers of secular coercion with post #16. If you follow that discussion you will find a great deal on this topic.

I'm not sure if I'm "Liberterian". Do't really know what that means and what baggage goes along with that.

I'm socially liberal in that I feel mature consenting adults ought to be able to make their own decisions on things. I'm supportive of "family" being a basic human right. I'm supportive of non discrimination. I am supportive of capitalism, but I'm also pragmatic rather than idealistic.

With regards to Paidiske's post (firstly, I have a lot of respect for Paidiske, I think she seems like a reasonable person). I think any organisation or subgroup existing within a country must be bound to the laws of the land. (They don't get to be immune from laws and just make up their own).
I don't give religious organisations a special place. I think what is acceptable for religious organisations should be acceptable for all organisations.
But I do accept that the government shouldn't force churches to marry gay couple for example.
The government shouldn't be dictating sacraments and other customs and rituals of organisations.

But if a church decides to run a school then they should (IMO) be committed to all the regulations that apply to schools. For example, I don't think schools should be allowed to discriminate against gay teachers, nor do I think schools should be allowed to discriminate against unmarried teachers that get pregnant. (I do think it is a tricky balance trying to work out what laws do and don't apply to private businesses and private organisations)

 

[Occams Barber]

@Speedwell has pretty much dealt with this but since you're indulging in a mix of misrepresentation and gratuitous character assassination I want my turn.

The idea that religious morality is merely a result of "Divine Command Theory" and has no rational basis.

I have never said this. I have pointed out that certain Christian moral positions are based on nothing more than "God said so". There are many aspects of Christian morality which can be justified and are also consistent with secular morality.

The claim that all laws are basically just and that Paidiske's idea that there could be laws which unjustly target religious institutions is a non-starter.

IN PRINCIPLE laws are meant to be just. Of course there will be laws which wrongly target religions just as there will be laws which unfairly target minorities or stamp collectors. This doesn't justify giving religion a free pass to do whatever it wants.

The idea that Christianity is nothing more than a privileged institution which basically needs to be punished for that status.

Believe it or not Christianity is a privileged institution. It doesn't need to be punished - it just needs to follow the same rules as the rest of us.

This appears to be a case of historical ignorance and a failure to engage the legitimate positions of the opposing side. The ironic thing is that the principles you have laid out favor a kind of secular totalitarianism. What history tells us is that no matter how bad the religious totalitarian states got, the atheistic totalitarian states were much, much worse. It is curious to find seculars transposing the divine right of kings into the divine right of the state while at the same time eschewing the divine, but you see it all the time.

Totalitarian? I'm not talking about adding restrictions. Check out the list of 'wars' in the OP. The secular position is about REMOVING restrictions imposed by unjustified religious rules.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

Regarding his exchange with Paidiske, what is the difference between the Inquisition and OB's approach, apart from the color of the jersey? In both cases you have a powerful entity deciding that they are the only game in town and that rival factions must be rooted out. It is the selfsame model that is unable to tolerate a difference of opinion. So you have the common case of someone falling into the very thing they claim to oppose. Instead of a religious despot we get a secular despot.

The proposition here is very simple.

There are certain moral positions advocated by Christianity which cannot be justified apart from 'God/the Bible says so'. These positions often unfairly impact on certain members of society. Since these rules are both unfair and unjustified we should ignore them. Broadly speaking this is already happening (see 'Lost Causes' in the OP) in Western society.

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

GK Chesterton famously said that once man no longer worships God, he worships the world - as man naturally worships. In so doing, he will worship whatever seems strongest to him in it, which is usually the State or whatever the current fad is.

GK Chesterton was an ardent Christian - he would say that.

Try using legitimate argument instead of piffly truisms from Christian Divines.

OB

 

[zippy2006]

The proposition here is very simple.

There are certain moral positions advocated by Christianity which cannot be justified apart from 'God/the Bible says so'. These positions often unfairly impact on certain members of society. Since these rules are both unfair and unjustified we should ignore them. Broadly speaking this is already happening (see 'Lost Causes' in the OP) in Western society.

OB

The points in question have to do with the second distinction from post #19, religious freedom, not the first, societal morality. Like Speedwell your responses don't seem to be directed to anyone in the thread.

 

[zippy2006]

GK Chesterton was an ardent Christian - he would say that.

This is an ad hominem fallacy.

Try using legitimate argument instead of piffly truisms from Christian Divines.

Do you realize that by declaring Chesterton's statement a "truism" you have implicitly agreed with it?

By referencing Chesterton Quid was simply reinforcing a point I had made. He wrote the post to me. It was never meant to be a standalone argument...


Someday I am going to set up a charitable class called, "Logic for Atheists." I think it will be a big hit.

 

[Occams Barber]

The points in question have to do with the second distinction from post #19, religious freedom, not the first, societal morality. Like Speedwell your responses don't seem to be directed to anyone in the thread.

The points were directed to you as was obvious by the quote. Since you have a habit of skiing off piste I was hoping to bring you back to the point with a little summary.

OB

 

[zippy2006]

The points were directed to you as was obvious by the quote. Since you have a habit of skiing off piste I was hoping to bring you back to the point with a little summary.

OB

Note the first five words of the post you were responding to, "Regarding his exchange with Paidiske..." Now recall that Paidiske was not arguing that societal morality ought to reflect Christian morality, but rather that Christianity deserves religious freedom just as any other religion does. Now look at your response, which attempted to oppose the position which argues that societal morality ought to reflect Christian morality. Now recognize how irrelevant your post was.

 

[Paidiske]

IN PRINCIPLE laws are meant to be just. Of course there will be laws which wrongly target religions just as there will be laws which unfairly target minorities or stamp collectors. This doesn't justify giving religion a free pass to do whatever it wants.

And just in case it wasn't abundantly clear, I wasn't arguing for that free pass, either.

However, I feel as if the rest of the exchange has adequately illustrated my original point that - whatever we make of it - this is indeed a locus of conflict.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not sure. I think freedom of religion might mean that generic laws should not be framed in such a way as to compel people of particular beliefs, unless to prevent demonstrable harm.

This 'demonstrable harm' is the crux of the matter. If, for example, getting a divorce or using contraception doesn't cause harm (and can even be shown to be a positive) then the religious view must be ignored when it comes to legislation. That's not to say that religious people should be compelled to use contraception (obviously) or marry same sex couples. They should be free to live their lives as they wish as long as their actions do not negatively affect other sections of society.

 

[zippy2006]

This 'demonstrable harm' is the crux of the matter. If, for example, getting a divorce or using contraception doesn't cause harm (and can even be shown to be a positive) then the religious view must be ignored when it comes to legislation.

But the quote from Paidiske you responded to referenced "demonstrable harm" as a potential exception to the general rule of religious liberty. Here you are referencing "demonstrable harm" as something which must be present before a proposed prohibition--particularly a religiously motivated one--could become law. These are two completely different subjects.

That's not to say that religious people should be compelled to use contraception (obviously) or marry same sex couples. They should be free to live their lives as they wish as long as their actions do not negatively affect other sections of society.

That's exactly what was said, with the proviso that in those cases where the religious person is engaging in demonstrable harm their freedom need not be respected.

 

[Paidiske]

This 'demonstrable harm' is the crux of the matter. If, for example, getting a divorce or using contraception doesn't cause harm (and can even be shown to be a positive) then the religious view must be ignored when it comes to legislation. That's not to say that religious people should be compelled to use contraception (obviously) or marry same sex couples. They should be free to live their lives as they wish as long as their actions do not negatively affect other sections of society.

I would completely agree with you.

Like @zippy2006 I think we are talking about two completely separate issues.

1. Issues where religious groups attempt to impose their particular moral standards on society at large. This is not my issue; I agree with you that religious groups should not be able to do so.
2. Issues where society at large attempts to interfere with the boundaries, beliefs or practices of religious groups. This is where I was identifying an area of conflict.

 

[Occams Barber]

2. Issues where society at large attempts to interfere with the boundaries, beliefs or practices of religious groups. This is where I was identifying an area of conflict.

It comes down to what you mean by "attempts to interfere with". It may be, for instance, that a specific law which applies to everyone has the effect of banning a particular religious practice.

Your earlier circumcision example works here. If it were to be established, for example, that circumcision poses an unacceptable medical risk for infants then infant circumcision may be made illegal. This would legally prevent religiously motivated circumcision as well as non-religious circumcision. Has this 'interfered with the boundaries etc. If it has is the 'interference' legitimate?

Another real life example might be applying the generic law about gender discrimination to paid religious employees including priests, ministers, parsons etc.. At the moment in Australia religions are exempted. I would argue that this exemption should cease and employee gender discrimination rules should be applied. Is this an "attempt to interfere with..."?

Note that in both cases the rule applies to everybody. It's not specifically aimed at a particular religion.

OB

 

[GDL]

I think most Christians will in the end adapt to the sexual and gender changes, because the Gospel really isn't tied to traditional sexual attitudes whether modern or 1st Cent Jewish.

The Gospel isn't tied to morals (to paraphrase you)?

The foundation of the Gospel is that Jesus is YHWH's Christ who has all authority in Heaven and on earth.

God's Law, including morality and ethics (righteousness), is being written on the hearts of Christians. Love for God and neighbor is detailed by His Law, including morality and ethics as He specifies as righteousness.

The Gospel ultimately ties to everything that God says is righteousness, including sexual morality.

What most "christians" will end up accepting is not indicative of what the Gospel actually ties to.

 

[Occams Barber]

This is an ad hominem fallacy.

I can't even spell adhominonem - how could I do it?

Do you realize that by declaring Chesterton's statement a "truism" you have implicitly agreed with it?

By referencing Chesterton Quid was simply reinforcing a point I had made. He wrote the post to me. It was never meant to be a standalone argument...

Well caught Old Chap. Scratch truism and insert "pious pontification" instead.

OB