The Moral Wars

[Bradskii]

So, Christians should not be allowed to vote their conscience and understanding as educated pursuant to God's Righteous Standards and thereby impose His moral standards on society at large?

You would prefer Christians not have this right and ability to select national leaders and legislation?

To use the Catholic faith as an example, it is against abortion. But even within a religion where that is a specific aspect of the faith, you cannot get Catholics to agree on the matter. Take contraception. Again a specific aspect of the faith. Yet the vast majority of Catholic women have used it. Take divorce, gay marriage, sex outside of marriage, ...well, I needn't go on.

The only thing that Christians have in common is that they believe Jesus is their saviour. Good luck with getting anything near a consensus on any given moral matter.

 

[GDL]

Your adherence to the Christian faith gets you one vote at election time. You are due no more political power than that, the same as any non-Christian.

Thanks for clarifying.

I agree that this is how democracy works. Then there is also the added power of numbers that any one of us can work to assemble (as long as there is integrity in the system). And then there's money, and...

 

[GDL]

To use the Catholic faith as an example, it is against abortion. But even within a religion where that is a specific aspect of the faith, you cannot get Catholics to agree on the matter. Take contraception. Again a specific aspect of the faith. Yet the vast majority of Catholic women have used it. Take divorce, gay marriage, sex outside of marriage, ...well, I needn't go on.

The only thing that Christians have in common is that they believe Jesus is their saviour. Good luck with getting anything near a consensus on any given moral matter.

Not much different in the secular realm, so good luck with that also.

Your points about disagreement within Christianity are well-taken. Not only re: moral issues, but also theological issues, which I deal with way more than I do with this.

 

[Occams Barber]

Government compulsion isn't the answer.

It seems to be the answer applied to the rest of society. If the law applies to my workplace (if I were still actually in a workplace) why not yours?

I would withdraw religious exemptions but hold off on enforcement for a few years to allow time for gradual change under a bit of pressure.

I like the idea of throwing the cat among the pigeons

OB

 

[Bradskii]

IOW, you would argue to control what the Church thinks and does. Yes it would be an attempt to interfere, even impose, even control.

I think that you have it backwards. It's more removing control by those who are religious over those who either have a different religion or none at all. So, for example, if you think that sex outside marriage is wrong then fine. If you want to tell people that it will result in eternal damnation, then go for it. But you will not be given authority over those with different religions or no religion to enforce that view. Same with abortion, contraception, ssm etc etc.

So you can think what you want. And do what you want. Within your group. And you need to realise that there's a lot of overlap between groups. I'm not in yours, being an atheist. So your group's rules don't apply to me. But...you're in mine, being someone who is allowed to vote and who agrees to abide by the laws that those we vote in formulate. So our group's rules apply to you.

You can't have your cake and eat it. Make your choice at every turn and stick with it.

 

[Paidiske]

It seems to be the answer applied to the rest of society. If the law applies to my workplace (if I were still actually in a workplace) why not yours?

I can't remember if I know what you do for a living, OB, but the law should not violate conscience. If this is not a conscience issue for your workplace, great, but where it is, that needs to be respected.

That's why - for example - I support conscientious objection to armed service (I'd be interested in your take on that one).

It is, however - as I attempt to head off an unhelpful tangent - not the case that I support "conscientious objection" to, say, serving same sex couples in a business, because the business owner gets to choose the nature of their business, the scope of services offered, and so on. Someone who wouldn't be happy offering a product or service to particular people shouldn't offer it to anyone, and they will have no problem with refusal of service (imho).

I like the idea of throwing the cat among the pigeons

Well, to mix metaphors, those pigeons aren't your social guinea pigs. And they deserve better than to have their integrity tested or coerced by the government.

 

[Paidiske]

I think that you have it backwards. It's more removing control by those who are religious over those who either have a different religion or none at all.

In the case of the example under discussion - the ordination of women - no, it isn't. It's entirely an internal matter for that religious community.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The reason I'm needling you is that this is not the thread to engage in a debate about morality as such. It is well understood what your opinions are about Christian vs. secular morality. But the different question before us is why and how much anybody else should care? And if there are other groups in society with somewhat different moral standards, how is a secular state to deal with conflicts?

No, you keep ascribing views to me - because you know, "it is well understood" what my views are apparently - instead of focussing on what I actually wrote. My point was that the Secular state is not a moral institution, as after all, it would only enforce the prevailing view its politicians deem will get them re-elected. This changes constantly, as marriage or abortion or what have you makes plain. It is the problem with a democratic form of government that it can lead to a tyranny of the majority - take for instance Brexit, where a marginal majority forced almost half of the rest of the country, and all of Scotland, from the EU.

Regardless, as I said, the secular state will enforce what it deems desirable, and will consider it good - whether moral or not. That is why a robust system of checking the power of the state always has a religious defence (such as clause 1 of the Magna Carta or the first amendment of the US). The guard on when these are taken too far cannot be the state, as you don't put a wolf in charge of the hen coop. But that is what we are doing, so if you read my first post again, you'll see that I think we are probably building one of those aberrant societies again, but Morality is resilient even in different cultures. This too will pass.

Besides, the OP explicitly frames the thread's purpose in not in who ought to win, but who is. This is what I was responding to, not later discussions of why we should care or what to do when conflicts arise. As I think I make plain, the secular world is gaining ground I agree, but I don't think the Christian one has really given much - many are dying on their hills, and though public opinion might turn against them now, history is long. It reminds of people like Las Casas that deplorabled the enslavement of Indians or Africans in the New World, only for it to become the norm - and to be later justified on account of it; or the couple of Germans that opposed the Nazis that are now celebrated. It is the way of the Righteous to be sacrificed, often as a scapegoat even for societal ills.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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.

Oh, for sure. I fail to see where I advocated for setting up some version called "Christian Morality" that we are all beholden to, though. I said there is one Morality, that we approach or fail to. Slavery was an example, as was anti-Semitism (though that was actually a societal value from the Romans that was reframed in religious terms, not unlike Slavery) of such a failure.

There is one Morality. Sometimes we see it easily, as in feeding a child or letting him starve. Other times it is more murky. But we often know we have made mistakes, but you seldom know while making them - such as the aforementioned examples. Looking at Natural considerations and the prevailing moral precepts of human societies, you see a remarkable uniformity, which to me shows we are reading from the same script, through our glasses are varying levels of opaque. Our self-serving society is not really even trying, as we in fact celebrate the very idea of the overthrow thereof in modern culture. This is just an overreaction, as happens in all revolutions - the Terror will be followed by the Directory soon enough, though I don't think Madame Guillotine has even begun to be sharpened yet.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

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


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

OB

Christian Divines.

Anyway, just for completeness, Chesterton is not a divine. He was a journalist. Also, the additional fallacy is Bulverism, to dismiss something on account of who said it and his background, rather than merits thereof.

 

[Occams Barber]

In the case of the example under discussion - the ordination of women - no, it isn't. It's entirely an internal matter for that religious community.

This is where we're going to really differ. If female equality is the responsibility of all other parts of society why-o-why does Christianity get special treatment? There are times when a collective good overrides individual objection. In no society do you get to do what you want when you want. We try to accommodate all tastes but there really are times when we need to insist that you can't trample on the rights of others.

OB

 

[Paidiske]

This is where we're going to really differ. If female equality is the responsibility of all other parts of society why-o-why does Christianity get special treatment? There are times when a collective good overrides individual objection. In no society do you get to do what you want when you want. We try to accommodate all tastes but there really are times when we need to insist that you can't trample on the rights of others.

OB

And here, OB, we illustrate neatly the point of conflict I wished to point out.

(And this is not purely a Christian issue, let's not forget. Very few religions practice true equality of men and women).

But that aside, it's not, as I see it, a matter of special treatment. It's a matter of allowing people to live and worship according to their convictions, including allowing them to form communities to do so.

To refuse to do that is exactly the trampling on the rights of others that you are decrying.

I will fight fiercely for Christians not being allowed to coerce or impose on others. But the reverse must apply also; others must not be allowed to coerce or impose on Christians (again, clear and direct harm excepted).

 

[GDL]

I think that you have it backwards. It's more removing control by those who are religious over those who either have a different religion or none at all.

That's one view. But it's not the one OB is putting forth.

One controls or the other controls. If you remove my control, then you're in control. Or there's no controls and a free for all, but this is not workable in a society. There's going to be a point of view that controls the legislation. Whose standards do we use?

So you can think what you want. And do what you want. Within your group. And you need to realise that there's a lot of overlap between groups. I'm not in yours, being an atheist. So your group's rules don't apply to me. But...you're in mine, being someone who is allowed to vote and who agrees to abide by the laws that those we vote in formulate. So our group's rules apply to you.

Actually some of my group's rules do apply to you. There is overlap both ways and we can all be thankful that there is.

And...yours is not just yours, but also mine, as we're all on this globe together. I get to vote my conscience and you yours. The one with the most votes wins. So whichever group is in control makes the rules that apply, as far as those rules can apply. A point of the OP was how secular thought has been changing religious thought. But this is not in all of the religious and won't be. Paidiske made a point about conscience and it is a good one.

As discussed elsewhere, the Church is not subject to secular law. It does not have to and cannot conform to secular law that is not in accordance with ecclesiastical law, or it ceases to be the Church, which is an agenda of some of secularism.

Secular does not conform to religious in many matters and does not subject itself to religious. Neither group has a lock on non-conformity. And, at the end of the analysis, I doubt you or any of us are completely conforming to what we don't agree with.

This is all about differing worldviews. Living in societies means dealing with these differences. There won't be the free-for-all of no laws. There won't be consensus in worldview or where we get our standards. You don't want to be under religious control, nor does religion want to be under your control.

Solution?

 

[Bradskii]

In the case of the example under discussion - the ordination of women - no, it isn't. It's entirely an internal matter for that religious community.

And I have no problem with that. I personally think it's wrong. But I'm not a member of that religion so I have no say in it. It's an internal matter for that 'group'. It doesn't include me. But if anyone steps out of that group and starts making suggestions that impact the rest of society - then they have to abide by the rules of that larger group. Effectively the rules, regs and laws of society in general.

 

[Paidiske]

As discussed elsewhere, the Church is not subject to secular law.

For what it's worth, this is not my view. The Church is and must be subject to secular law, but secular law must have limits which respect the freedom of religion and conscience of Church members.

 

[zippy2006]

In no society do you get to do what you want when you want.

Remember when I said you were walking a totalitarian line? I must say, I love this quote.

We try to accommodate all tastes but there really are times when we need to insist that you can't trample on the rights of others.

As it turns out, rights conflict (as do "rights"). You seem keen to use the state to trample the rights of religions because you believe that women have a universal right to equal access. But if women really had a universal right to equal access then not only male priesthoods would be illegal, but also men's bathrooms, men's sports, men's clubs, etc.

This is a good example of the sort of tyrannical action that Paidiske was concerned about with regard to unjust laws: seculars who are quick to acknowledge their own values and rights but very slow to acknowledge religious values and rights. It is especially strange coming from a self-declared moral relativist.

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that religious institutions are voluntary associations. Unlike nations, no one is forced to enter or remain in a religion. If a woman wants to be ordained she can certainly find a non-Catholic church.

 

[GDL]

For what it's worth, this is not my view. The Church is and must be subject to secular law, but secular law must have limits which respect the freedom of religion and conscience of Church members.

Did you include my sentence which followed? Remember context.

 

[Paidiske]

Did you include my sentence which followed? Remember context.

Your sentence which followed seemed to me simply to be expanding on your argument that the Church is not subject to secular law, but I was disagreeing with that. We cannot claim to be above secular law.

 

[Bradskii]

You don't want to be under religious control, nor does religion want to be under your control.

Solution?

The solution is to operate within the relevant group. If your religion doesn't want to sanctify ssm for example, then fine. I have no problem. I'm happy with whatever you decide to do within your church that only affects members of your church. But...as soon as you step outside of the church, then your religious rules do not apply. Now you're in the larger group comprising all society so you have to obey the same rules as everyone else does.

If I'm a member of your church then you have the right to tell me what I can and cannot do. If I'm not a member of your church then you don't. But...if I'm not a member then I can't tell you what to do inside your church either (as long as it doesn't impact on anyone outside your religion).

 

[GDL]

then they have to abide by the rules of that larger group.

To the degree that they can. IOW, as soon as I step out into the world (so to speak) I have some things I cannot do according to the rules I live by and the conscience I have. And, actually, I have some directives to draw the line and do what God says and reject what is not in line with it, knowing that there may well be consequences from the world for doing so.

I'm sure we could come up with rules of the larger group that you would not abide by, even if we have to project where we could be headed, or maybe have been at points in history.

The mob is capable of putting about anything into force. Thus the views against democracy.