The morality of Christian religion & politics

[stevil]

Forgetting about the politics for a second, and focusing on the spiritual matter here: If a witch is a threat because she communicates with demons and by doing so unleashes them to cause harm to people, how would throwing her in prison stop her communicating with the demons, or stop the demons themselves?

How does a person communicate with demons? Is there a special telephone number?
Does someone have such a recording so that we can hear for ourselves?
I've heard the phone call the Georgia Secretary of State had with Trump.
Would a call with a demon be worse than that?

 

[Eadgyth]

The fact cannot be understated that faith is under attack in America. Years ago the State of Alabama tried to honor God and respect Christian principles and morality by placing a Ten Commandments monument in a courthouse. Psalms 9:17 says that all nations that forget God will be cast into hell, so naturally we Christians are obliged to publicly declare our support for our heavenly father. However, the ungodly secularists at the ACLU couldn’t tolerate such innocuous displays of faith, so they initiated a lawsuit and successfully had the said monument removed. It was a true act of sacrilege.

And it was none other than the notorious SPLC, a radical leftist smearing racket that likes to put conservative Christians on their “hate criminal” lists alongside Nazis, that wrote a report celebrating the removal of the Ten Commandments monument. Read their gushing report here: Judge Orders Removal of Ten Commandments Monument

Isn’t it sad that our nation faces so many problems such as homelessness, crime, violence, climate change, an expensive and inefficient healthcare system, etc. Yet our government is prioritizing “separation of church and state” above more pertinent problems.

Some people might argue that the Ten Commandments monument violates the ungodly US Constitution because displaying it purports to favor one religion over another. If that nonsense were true, why is the Church of Satan being allowed to display their Statue of Baphomet in public government places? Read about it here: Statue of Baphomet - Wikipedia

It appears that our government thinks it’s terrible if the Ten Commandments get displayed at a courthouse, but for some reason they think it’s okay if the Statue of Baphomet is allowed on state capitol buildings. Could it be because the ungodly secularists are in conspiracy with Satan to snuff out Christianity from public life and publicly declare their support for the Devil?

Let me give you a little history lesson Nine of Spades of why the Founding Fathers wrote the First Amendment like they did.

The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.

As a religious minority in Connecticut, the Danbury Baptists were concerned that a religious majority might "reproach their chief Magistrate... because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ," thus establishing a state religion at the cost of the liberties of religious minorities.

Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice.


Am thankful to live in a country where we can be free from prosecution and free to practice or lack of any religious beliefs how we see best with out some one else imposing their beliefs on us.

You speak of forcing Christianity into schools by means of prayers and religious studies but would be quite offended if that same school forced your child to learn Islam.

You yell that your being prosecuted for being a Christian yet turn around and say Atheist should not be on social media or in politics. And that witches and satanist shoud be prosecuted for what they believe

Call the kettle black on that one.

 

[Robban]

How does a person communicate with demons? Is there a special telephone number?
Does someone have such a recording so that we can hear for ourselves?
I've heard the phone call the Georgia Secretary of State had with Trump.
Would a call with a demon be worse than that?

"Don't call me, I'll call you."

 

[stevevw]

That is how democracy works. The concept is that representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people or of those making "the most noise" as you put it. It leaves any of us in the position on any one given day of having something legislated that isn't what we would have personally preferred because our position is a minority position. If you live in a democracy, you should expect to be disappointed occasionally.

But that is not what is happening in this PC age. Minorities are influencing policies ánd regulation and it is the majority who are having to have decisions & policies implemeted that wasnt what was wanted. A lot of the time it isnt the legisaltion per se but the interpretation of it that causes the problem.

It is how that legislation or policy is interpreted out on the streets and in business that seems to be the problem. Like how an organisation may interpret the descrimination laws. The simple fact that we live in a society that is not looking after our interests and has so many complaining shows that the majority are disatified.

I will agree that the influence of corporate interests has not been a good thing for the country. SCOTUS ruling on Citizens United that corporations have the same standing as people is unfortunate and has turned our government into the best government money can buy. And money has bought your legislator who is more apt to listen to big money than to you. But that gate swings both ways, affecting both conservative and liberal causes. I suspect we would have had a different reaction to school shootings by now if the NRA wasn't pumping hundreds of thousands into legislators' campaign contributions.

Not too familiar with all that as I dont live in the US. But I am sure a similar system is at play. You have identified one obvious reason why the system is broken. Money and power do buy influence. But so does lobbying from minorities who pressure governments to get their way. They make so much noise and cause so much hassle for governments that they give in.

But this is partly the a consequence of a individualistic culture. Radical individualism has forced governments to accommodate minorities in the name of descrimination. Anyone can claim they are being descriminated against because they are not being accommodated. Therefore we have to change policy to accommodate what most people would regard as wrong and we cannot do much about it.

And a final minor point, morals are not the exclusive territory of religious people. Non-Christians and non-religious persons and societies also have morals.

Of course I agree but the important point is whether or not those morals have any basis. Its not a case of whether someone has morals but how they can ground those morals that count.

 

[bèlla]

My faith isn’t under attack. Nor am I oppressed. America is a melting pot and that’s increasingly evident as time passes. We don’t share the same thoughts, feelings, or experiences.

The growing postulations of us vs. them rhetoric, self-induced fears, and media manipulation have created a society of hypersensitive fearmongering and irrational behavior.

Yours in His Service,

~bella

 

[SilverBear]

That is exactly what is happening across a number of issues. Minority groups are dictating terms on issues where the evidence shows they are wrong. But for some reason when it comes to political rights evidence goes out the window.

what minority groups are you talking about? what exactly are they dictating? What evidence?

 

[SilverBear]

But this is partly the a consequence of a individualistic culture. Radical individualism has forced governments to accommodate minorities in the name of descrimination. Anyone can claim they are being descriminated against because they are not being accommodated.

if an individual is not being accommodated (access to good and services offered to the general public) because they are a member of a minority then they ARE being discriminated against. It's pretty much the definition of discrimination.

 

[stevevw]

No, the "Christian" values were a particular type at best, not necessarily genuine Christian values, which I don't think any Christian can make an absolute claim on.

I don't understand what you means the Christian values were a particular type. They were Christian values based on the Bible on Christ teachings as understood at that time.

Not to mention those values are not monolithic to that religion by any stretch, it's incidental demographics and culture that forms that aspect for the countries (America not founded on the Bible or Christian values, but Enlightenment values from John Locke and the like)

Of course they were founded on Christian values, 98% of the population was Christian at the time of the founding fathers. It was 80% plus in the 50s. We are talking about specific values like no divorce, traditional families, anti-abortion, honour thy father and mother ect.

The basis was all people were equal under God and we were created in Gods image. This was the basis for human dignity, human rights and equality and other religions did not have this basis. If anything Locke brought in liberalism which has led to individualism and subjectivism.

No, the motto was to affirm some idea that we weren't communist, as if communism is anti Christian (it isn't, there are communist Christians, they just don't advocate Stalinist or Leninist ideas, Marxism arguably different and possibly the closest as an ally, ironically)

I think we should have never had that motto, E Pluribus Unum suffices, not needing to throw in a divisive term like God, presuming everyone owes their rights to it for the government's civil aspects

Actually the reason the US put that motto on dollar bills was to show that unlike Russia who was an atheist nation that America was a nation who believed in God.

Actually, there was, because it isn't equitable in how it treats the citizens, Christians should get no special treatment in a society that cares about all its citizens rather than giving preferential regard based on arbitrary factors

As stated one of the basic tenets of Christianity was that all people are equal under God. That was used as a core value very early on. Human dignity and value was derived from them being created in Gods image. That gave human life value and was one of the core Christian values in forming the US constitution and human rights.

I don't have to respect your Christian beliefs or values, I respect values that actually have evidence and solid arguments for their institution as something that is shared by a society of all and no religious affiliations, which is what America is and should be

The problem is in todays liberalised and individualistic society where identity politics and PC have a big influence values are not being based on evidence but whoever can demand rights the loudest or buy influence through money. The ironic thing is the evidence shows that having religious belief is beneficial across a number of areas including physical and mental health.

The government doesn't have religion, first off,

I know and thats the problem. They dont have any basis for their morality and yet many of their policies and legislations are underpinned by moral values.

individual representatives all have that, but it should never be the primary factor for their legislative or judicial decisions. Incorrect, they are not merely subject to the masses because there are values that exist without regard to any particular religion, you're confusing democracy with ochlocracy, which is not what we're remotely based on, because we care about minority rights along with majority rule as a general principle

Yes but in reality moral values do underpin decisions made by governments and they do take certain moral positions in the decisions they make. They cannot make decisions without being influenced by some moral value one way or another. The problem is because the government tries to remain neutral/unbiased they inevitably are swayed by others who put pressure on them or influence them though money.

They can disagree all they want, that isn't infringing on their right of religious exercise because it applies in a secular context, it is not forcing religions to approve of it

The fact is that decisions are made, policies are implemented that force people to go along with ideals they are against or that the majority disagree with and which are not based on the evidence for them being what is best.

I don't make a claim abotu the government's morality, but you're confusing preferential ideas within a religious group as the primary factor versus seeking the common good, which does not mean playing favorites to anyone, but doing what is best for the whole and not trying to please everyone equally.

As pointed out above this is not the case in todays political and social climate. PC and identity politics has caused governments to making decisions and implementing policies that are not based on the evidence and are not necessarily good for the majority of society. So the idea of the government making decisions for the common good is unreal and not the case. Everyone knows the government is in it for themselves. Their decisions are short term and appeasing those who can help them stay in power.

You assume that a government has to be one or the other: a moral basis doesn't require any particular religion, first off, so they can have some aspect for that without making an appeal to any religion or worldview of that nature.

I disagree. You have to have some moral position otherwise you will be open to going along with whatever trend or influence comes along. The problem with secular ideologies is that it doesnt believe that there is any truth to moral values. It tries to be everything to all and that only invites problems.

Rights are the essential factor here, it isn't absolutely liberty, because liberty with no restrictions in relation to rights will trample all over those rights and be seen as "good"

And that is exactly what is happening. Radial liberalism has caused all sorts of individuals and groups to demand their rights. Identity politics is influencing policy. Decisions are being made not because it is the right thing to do but because of whom a person is associated with, what identity they have. If a person is disadvantaged it must be because of their minority group and not because they may have personally caused the problem. If someone is successful it must be because of their white privilege and not because of their hard work.

No, that's incorrect, you're generalizing based on what appears to be vast misinformation, but you're also speaking so generally that you can just claim that it's out there, but haven't actually substantiated the claims as to how evidence is being ignored for policy issues.

The evidence comes from the fact that the majority of people think PC culture has gone too far and that policies and decisions have been made despite the evidence which states this should not be the case. I could go into specifics but I think the majority speaks more about supporting what I am saying.
Study: 80 Percent of People Think ‘Political Correctness Is a Problem in Our Country’
Political Correctness: Study Finds 80 Percent of Americans Think It’s a Problem | National Review

Social regard is distinct from government policy, like political correctness as something that people are expected to understand because we are a civil society, not a group of raucous buffoons.

Policies are about social regard. The type of policies you make will affect social welfare etc. For example if the policy is to make divorce easy then this will inevitably lead to more family breakdowns. So if a government has little regard for families then this is a morally bad policy.

 

[stevevw]

Not all secular things are the same, nor is secular the same as anti religion, there's a lot of conflation going on here

If you agree with those, then your only objection is purely based on piety and stuff that the government has no reason to care about and will protect your right to religious belief and exercise insofar as it doesn't infringe on the basic rights of the public or private citizens, including peace and safety, something you admit doesn't require a religious basis to be beneficial to society

So why do they think they know better? Is it in any part because of religious beliefs about eschatology or some supposed protection from their god? In which case, the government is not discriminating when it fines those people based on that, same as those who have a deluded sense of what constitutes legitimate government or other nonsense that spreads so much easier the more accessible general information is, rather than people training their brains to think critically

Like I said most western nations have become liberalised and individualistic. What is determined as important when it comes to rights depends on what underlying moral/value that society has. As western nations have become more secular they have lost their Christian values and this has to be replaced with something.

You call it rights or the common good but when we investigate this we find that it is not about equal rights and common good but a number of influences that dictate what ends up becoming the values and policies secular society takes on. It is certainly not a democratic process and something the majority agrees with.

I suggest that part of why people dont trust the government and believe they know better is becuase of the climate that has been created by secular society. If moral value is subjective and determined by individuals or groups then inevitabbnly there will be conflict and competing views all believing they are right.

That's not a matter of morality by necessity, it's a sense of arrogance rooted in a moralizing fundamentalism that insists they're doing something to protect people's rights, but also disregard those rights in terms of safety by flouting safety protocols and saying they're not breaking any laws. Sure, maybe not, but that doesn't mean they cannot be punished by a free market of ideas in society where there are consequences to being a person that shows how little you care about others and act antagonistic and rude.

I think everything here has a moral basis. When people reject authority and disregard safety or health of others because they think they know better they are putting others at risk. They are being selfish, and they could cause harm. They show little respect for other humans. But this is the nature of today’s individualistic culture. It’s all about me, my rights, my situation, my truth over others.

Solipsism is their issue, not skepticism, which can regard things as suspect and not throw a tantrum like they think they know better rather than being honest and saying they believe it to be so, which is the case when they assert things and can't substantiate them

Maybe so but I also think people have agenda’s. They believe in certain truths and political ideals. Like the growing idea that society needs socialism. Like cancel culture. They believe that our society past and present is wrong and needs changing. But this is all part of post modernism and liberalism where there is no truth on anything, morals, politics, history but only my truth that matters and if you disagree then you are breaching my rights and being discriminatory.

Misinformation is only one half of the problem: when people think their convictions are all that matters and not evidence that is independently verifiable, misinformation only galvanizes that attitude which is already there and they can then try to point to that "information" they believe is true without actually thinking critically about it or being humble enough to admit they might be wrong

I think there is a number of reasons why people are distrusting the government and the things they hear. We live in an age of post modernist ideologies. Fundelmetally everything is being critised and challenged. There is no truth and people believe that their truth is just as relevant and important.

Along with radical liberalism which is sort of a offshoot of post modernism this has led to PC and cancel culture. This is all part of secular society filling a void left when they abandoned their belief in God. Now humans are the gods and they believe they hold the truth morality, life and wellbeing. We use to base our values and morality in the nature of God, now its in the nature of mankind. Oops that politically incorrect. I shouldnt have said man but humankind.

I can respect authority without being subservient to it in an unquestioning way, which is what these people who ironically bring up some question of human authority and then claim they are absolutely right without actually thinking, the same slavish attitude they accuse others of doing with the government

Just because the ideas we have may not work all the time is not a reason to try and throw the proverbial baby out with the bathwater, people want change too fast and thus they just advocate for outright revolution and civil unrest on the level of sedition, it's not healthy

I think its a confusing and anxious time for many. They dont know what the future holds. They are worried and dont trust anyone. The governmet has let people down so many times and the system is failing. There is an air of anarchy and for change. People feel they want to take matters into their own hand. I think this is the result of a society/nation having lost their moral compass.

 

[stevevw]

what minority groups are you talking about? what exactly are they dictating? What evidence?

Just think about any issue that people complain is PC culture and you will find where decisions or actions have been taken that the majority think are wrong. It can be a number of things such as the control of language, the media or regaltions due to appeasing a small number of people demanding their rights. It could be policies that are designed to accommodate minorities like changing long held beliefs and practices that the majority support because it may make minority groups feel uncomfortable.

Examples i can think of are how we society is being forced to go along with gender ideology, (cannot use the words man or women, boys and girls), its offensive to promote the importance of fathers, stay home mothers is demeaning to women, changing long held traditions like Christmas into Happy holidays, erase our history becuase it is seen as oppressive in the eyes of some, cannot speak about certain topics as its seen as hate speech ect ect ect.

This has an influence on our morals and values as a society. It erodes our values on traditional the traditional family, our relationships, roles identities. Now even suggesting these traditions people are said to be descriminating because there is no specific family or roles anymore.

 

[stevevw]

if an individual is not being accommodated (access to good and services offered to the general public) because they are a member of a minority then they ARE being discriminated against. It's pretty much the definition of discrimination.

I am not talking about that. It is more about inclusiveness regardless of whether it is good or bad for society or has evidence that is it the case. I agree we have to be incluive but I dont think that means at any cost. When you dont have a moral basis as a society then you are open to being influenced into going along with ideals that may not be the best or being supported for the whole of society.

For example under gender ideology there is a belief that there is no innate male and female. So policies are being introduced that may be harmful for young people. But society is being forced to go along due to anti-descrimination laws without question because we hold indiviudal rights so high above all else. If anyone dare question whether some of their vales and ideals are good or bad they are shot down due to PC.

I dont want to get into a debate about gender ideology but I could name many other examples from allowing religious nutters to spread their hate, no platforming of people, to denying womens rights to safe spaces beause a male can claim to be a women just by saying so. This is a sign of the times. But it is undermining any clear and unified moral values in society.

 

[SilverBear]

Just think about any issue that people complain is PC culture and you will find where decisions or actions have been taken that the majority think are wrong.

Right and wrong is not determined by what the majority thinks.
Barely a generation ago the majority felt that things like racial segregation was perfectly moral and just. It was never moral no matter how many people approved of it.

It can be a number of things such as the control of language, the media or regaltions due to appeasing a small number of people demanding their rights.

The question arises as to just why those small number of people don't have rights and why you don't view this as a problem.

It could be policies that are designed to accommodate minorities like changing long held beliefs and practices that the majority support because it may make minority groups feel uncomfortable.

like racial segregation

Examples i can think of are how we society is being forced to go along with gender ideology, (cannot use the words man or women, boys and girls),

you just used the words you are claiming you cannot. How is this possible?

its offensive to promote the importance of fathers, stay home mothers is demeaning to women,

what utter bull

changing long held traditions like Christmas into Happy holidays,

anyone taking a couple minutes with Google will find that people have been saying "happy Holiday's for hundreds of years

erase our history becuase it is seen as oppressive in the eyes of some, cannot speak about certain topics as its seen as hate speech ect ect ect.

can't speak about certain topics or can't get away with lying about such topics or the promoting of discrimination or even violence against your above mentioned pushy and nasty minorities.

This has an influence on our morals and values as a society. It erodes our values on traditional the traditional family, our relationships, roles identities. Now even suggesting these traditions people are said to be descriminating because there is no specific family or roles anymore.

more bull. Recognizing that families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes isn't an attack on your "traditional family" (which isn't traditional at all) it's an acknowledgement that all families have value.

 

[SilverBear]

I am not talking about that. It is more about inclusiveness regardless of whether it is good or bad for society or has evidence that is it the case. I agree we have to be incluive but I dont think that means at any cost. When you dont have a moral basis as a society then you are open to being influenced into going along with ideals that may not be the best or being supported for the whole of society.

For example under gender ideology there is a belief that there is no innate male and female.

you need to educate yourself as to just what gender ideology entails because you don't seem to have a clue..


Gender ideology refers to attitudes regarding the appropriate roles, rights and responsibilities of men and women in society. Traditional gender ideologies emphasizes the value of distinctive roles for women and men where men fulfill their family roles through breadwinning activities and women fulfill their roles through homemaker and parenting activities.
Gender ideology also refers to societal beliefs that legitimate gender inequality. Gender ideology is not a variable that ranges from liberal to conservative instead it refers to specific type of belief those that support gender stratification.

So policies are being introduced that may be harmful for young people.

what policies?

But society is being forced to go along due to anti-descrimination laws without question because we hold indiviudal rights so high above all else. If anyone dare question whether some of their vales and ideals are good or bad they are shot down due to PC.

again: if an individual is not being accommodated (access to good and services offered to the general public) because they are a member of a minority then they ARE being discriminated against. It's pretty much the definition of discrimination.

I dont want to get into a debate about gender ideology but I could name many other examples from allowing religious nutters to spread their hate, no platforming of people, to denying womens rights to safe spaces beause a male can claim to be a women just by saying so. This is a sign of the times. But it is undermining any clear and unified moral values in society.

you do realize that your "signs of the times are fake claims made by "religious nutters" (your words not mine) to spread hate don't you?

 

[muichimotsu]

I don't understand what you means the Christian values were a particular type. They were Christian values based on the Bible on Christ teachings as understood at that time. Of course they were founded on Christian values, 98% of the population was Christian at the time of the founding fathers. It was 80% plus in the 50s. We are talking about specific values like no divorce, traditional families, anti-abortion, honour thy father and mother ect.

Those values are not Christian exclusive, because they're Abrahamic in a broader sense, you don't get to claim any kind of monopoly, plus you're ignoring that the whole cultural hegemony and demographic majority means nothing as to the ideals of the country itself in how it governs itself, because those things will likely shift

The basis was all people were equal under God and we were created in Gods image. This was the basis for human dignity, human rights and equality and other religions did not have this basis. If anything Locke brought in liberalism which has led to individualism and subjectivism.

Subjectivism is not innately wrong, nor is individualism, except in the excessive forms, you're engaging in split thinking here and demonizing something you think must be the enemy based on your skewed and myopic viewpoint. It's not helping your case, it's just digging a deeper hole

Actually the reason the US put that motto on dollar bills was to show that unlike Russia who was an atheist nation that America was a nation who believed in God.

Russia was totalitarian, the "atheist" aspect was anti religious in a repressive fashion, that is immaterial to your counter point, which is outright wrong, because not everyone in America believes in the Christian God or even a monotheistic God, so it's a patent lie as well. Do you think that's appropriate: for a country to lie about its values?

As stated one of the basic tenets of Christianity was that all people are equal under God. That was used as a core value very early on. Human dignity and value was derived from them being created in Gods image. That gave human life value and was one of the core Christian values in forming the US constitution and human rights.

No, they're not, because if they don't believe in God they are condemned to eternal suffering as punishment. If we were truly equal, God would not make the judgment at all and wouldn't act like our imperfections would slight its perfection at all

Human dignity doesn't require that, you keep asserting this as if it is fact, but that's mere historical coincidence. And again, this doesn't follow to a cultural or jurisprudential value in regards to that. You might as well just say that any non Christian is not really an American by that logic

The problem is in todays liberalised and individualistic society where identity politics and PC have a big influence values are not being based on evidence but whoever can demand rights the loudest or buy influence through money. The ironic thing is the evidence shows that having religious belief is beneficial across a number of areas including physical and mental health.

The evidence is always variable, you keep making broad absolute claims without even starting to cite your evidence you claim is unassailable, which is thoroughly unscientific as an attitude, because evidence should not be regarded as without any possibility of falsifiability.

LGBTQ don't seem to have that kind of money, so the "minority" that demands and buys influence is seemingly more corporations, so that doesn't appear to be anything related to your identity politics or political correctness as bogeyman you want to demonize based on superficial understanding. Try again

I know and thats the problem. They dont have any basis for their morality and yet many of their policies and legislations are underpinned by moral values. Yes but in reality moral values do underpin decisions made by governments and they do take certain moral positions in the decisions they make. They cannot make decisions without being influenced by some moral value one way or another. The problem is because the government tries to remain neutral/unbiased they inevitably are swayed by others who put pressure on them or influence them though money.

*facepalm* You don't need religion to have a basis for morality, you continue to just make bald assertions without even starting to substantiate your claims beyond further assertions.

Neutrality is the goal, there is no reason to give favor to any religion, that's the whole point of the first amendment's establishment clause. Or have you not read it?

The fact is that decisions are made, policies are implemented that force people to go along with ideals they are against or that the majority disagree with and which are not based on the evidence for them being what is best.

You don't know what is best, you believe it. The evidence you keep asserting is, 1) not substantive and 2) not absolute, because that's not how science works, especially in regards to social considerations

As pointed out above this is not the case in todays political and social climate. PC and identity politics has caused governments to making decisions and implementing policies that are not based on the evidence and are not necessarily good for the majority of society. So the idea of the government making decisions for the common good is unreal and not the case. Everyone knows the government is in it for themselves. Their decisions are short term and appeasing those who can help them stay in power.

You don't get to make that determination with regards to your preferential idea that Christianity seems to just deserve special treatment in society, which is tantamount to how the Puritans acted in the 1700s.

What you believe to be the common good is not necessarily based on significant evidence and isn't how the government should act anyway: no one is claiming they are making perfect decisions and are infallible, you're expecting an absolute where there cannot be such a thing

Some politicians are in it for profit or such, your cynicism and pessimism is not necessarily true as to all politicians, that's painting with a broad brush and only alienating yourself from civil society further

I disagree. You have to have some moral position otherwise you will be open to going along with whatever trend or influence comes along. The problem with secular ideologies is that it doesnt believe that there is any truth to moral values. It tries to be everything to all and that only invites problems.

Moral positions don't require religion, you don't get to keep making these assertions and expecting me to not call you out on this.

This isn't an ideology that is common and you're honestly just strawmanning now to try and dishonestly present your position as the more compelling one when it's also a false dichotomy. There can be truth to moral values, but they should not be based on mere authoritative assertions and such. And no, the goal is not appealing to everyone, but trying to maximize the good outcome as much as possible, even if it means some people are going to be upset. But those in that minority, while deserving some protections, do not get to behave in any way they want merely because they think they have the freedom to do so (those who opposed the election outcome don't get to engage in seditious terroristic acts against Congress, for example)

And that is exactly what is happening. Radial liberalism has caused all sorts of individuals and groups to demand their rights. Identity politics is influencing policy. Decisions are being made not because it is the right thing to do but because of whom a person is associated with, what identity they have. If a person is disadvantaged it must be because of their minority group and not because they may have personally caused the problem. If someone is successful it must be because of their white privilege and not because of their hard work.

It isn't always the right thing to do merely because it was a tradition, that's as idiotic as suggesting there is no aspect of hard work that can indicate possible success

False dichotomy: black people are not necessarily causing their own downfall, the systemic racism in America has disadvantaged them and that's not just white people encouraging that, it can also be black people who think that hard work is all you need, when that isn't how it works in a society, a system that makes an attempt to govern people. And success is not guaranteed for white people, you don't even appear to understand identity politics, let alone the concept of white privilege, which is odd if you're supposedly so "intelligent" and know all this "evidence", yet haven't presented it

The evidence comes from the fact that the majority of people think PC culture has gone too far and that policies and decisions have been made despite the evidence which states this should not be the case. I could go into specifics but I think the majority speaks more about supporting what I am saying.
Study: 80 Percent of People Think ‘Political Correctness Is a Problem in Our Country’
Political Correctness: Study Finds 80 Percent of Americans Think It’s a Problem | National Review

That's not evidence, that's a singular study that can spin the numbers in a way that is not representative of all people necessarily

The majority is not always right, that's a patently obvious fallacy that I'm disappointed you can't seem to recognize past your confirmation bias and borderline indoctrination into an ideology that plays on your fears and insecurities by promising absolute certainty and protection by some great power, the lies of authoritarian cult leaders

Policies are about social regard. The type of policies you make will affect social welfare etc. For example if the policy is to make divorce easy then this will inevitably lead to more family breakdowns. So if a government has little regard for families then this is a morally bad policy.

Divorce being "easy" is different from divorce being possible with regards to irreconcilable differences. Are you aware it was basically not possible to do that until no fault divorce laws were passed in the 60s or so? Couples had to lie under oath to a judge that there was fault done in the marriage in order to get a divorce when there may very well have not been anything such done (adultery, abuse, etc).

Family breakdowns are not reducible to one factor, that's ludicrous. And the government trying to help does not mean it will always have the best outcome, that's wishful thinking from anyone who thinks that government is always the solution

 

[muichimotsu]

Like I said most western nations have become liberalised and individualistic. What is determined as important when it comes to rights depends on what underlying moral/value that society has. As western nations have become more secular they have lost their Christian values and this has to be replaced with something.

Liberalism is not necessarily evil, nor is an element of individualism, you haven't actually shown that these are some innate wrong rather than being twisted by culture and time

Christian value doesn't have a monopoly on valuing human dignity and it doesn't originate with them either, especially not in a logical fashion that isn't appealing to an unfalsifiable idea like God as the authoritative basis for it instead of, *gasp*, evidence that supports the idea of human value

You call it rights or the common good but when we investigate this we find that it is not about equal rights and common good but a number of influences that dictate what ends up becoming the values and policies secular society takes on. It is certainly not a democratic process and something the majority agrees with.

Equality and equity are not the same thing, you're confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome, that's not remotely what people want, because there should be a freedom fo choice and upward mobility as a possible outcome

There will always be influences, no one is saying we can be perfectly neutral, but neutrality is the goal in terms of protecting rights through a democratic system that protects that by majority rule, but acknowledging minority protections as well, they aren't mutually exclusive. But you don't appear to understand that democracy is not just majority agreement, that's ochlocracy, rule by mob

I suggest that part of why people dont trust the government and believe they know better is becuase of the climate that has been created by secular society. If moral value is subjective and determined by individuals or groups then inevitabbnly there will be conflict and competing views all believing they are right.

It's not a climate that is secular society which creates the mistrust of government: more often it is those that assert moral absolutes and think they know better because they can appeal to some "higher power", which is just might makes right.

Subjective does not mean there cannot be some objective assessments, they just will not be perfect, which is a deluded expectation, to be frank

I think everything here has a moral basis. When people reject authority and disregard safety or health of others because they think they know better they are putting others at risk. They are being selfish, and they could cause harm. They show little respect for other humans. But this is the nature of today’s individualistic culture. It’s all about me, my rights, my situation, my truth over others.

That disrespect for others comes from the idea that their freedom that they most often believe is given by a God supersedes the government or even other people's safety. That isn't a secular thing at all, that is a religious ideology that misunderstands freedom as something absolute in a civil society rather than needing to be limited by basic discretion that acknowledges others deserve to feel reasonably secure

The individualism leads to solipsism, which, again, tends to be manipulated more easily in a religious/supernaturalist ideology that thinks that their revealed divine truth is more valid than someone appealing to independently verifiable evidence

Maybe so but I also think people have agenda’s. They believe in certain truths and political ideals. Like the growing idea that society needs socialism. Like cancel culture. They believe that our society past and present is wrong and needs changing. But this is all part of post modernism and liberalism where there is no truth on anything, morals, politics, history but only my truth that matters and if you disagree then you are breaching my rights and being discriminatory.

Socialism is not remotely in the vein of cancel culture and I don't think you remotely understand those, but have taken your individual assessment and concluded that other people's understandings are wrong with no real good reason

And then you continue to spout more strawmen, as if that is remotely what most people believe without actually verifying it at all. Instead you go with what your preferred media tells you and makes you comfortable instead of challenging those ideas

There is an important consideration about discrimination, it isn't just someone's freedom when we're talking about public accommodations, a specific legal context

I think there is a number of reasons why people are distrusting the government and the things they hear. We live in an age of post modernist ideologies. Fundelmetally everything is being critised and challenged. There is no truth and people believe that their truth is just as relevant and important.

Post modernists aren't the ones that are encouraging the kind of violent revolution we saw a week ago, those are authoritarian ideologues and zealots who think freedom is more important than security.

Skepticism does not follow to a conclusion that there is no truth, unless we're talking a specific form, which is philosophically rare, to my understanding

Along with radical liberalism which is sort of a offshoot of post modernism this has led to PC and cancel culture. This is all part of secular society filling a void left when they abandoned their belief in God. Now humans are the gods and they believe they hold the truth morality, life and wellbeing. We use to base our values and morality in the nature of God, now its in the nature of mankind. Oops that politically incorrect. I shouldnt have said man but humankind.

And you just continue to make these assertions, which I'm not just going to believe because you say it: substantiate this or I can't take your ramblings seriously, because you're acting on these irrational fears and othering of groups that you think are the problem rather than considering that maybe your position is not so solid as you believe it to be

I don't consider myself a god, nor do I just determine truth by my will, that's ridiculous.

Again, I don't think you understand what political correctness means, you're taking stuff from 1984 or Brave New World and applying that to political correctness, which wasn't really in common usage until the late 80s early 90s, long after those novels were released that spoke about other terms

I think its a confusing and anxious time for many. They dont know what the future holds. They are worried and dont trust anyone. The governmet has let people down so many times and the system is failing. There is an air of anarchy and for change. People feel they want to take matters into their own hand. I think this is the result of a society/nation having lost their moral compass.

No one knows what the future holds, that's the issue: someone claiming they do is writing a check their mouth can't cash.

Trust should not be absolute, that's simply dangerous on its face.

What you want is some authority telling us what to believe, that's not going to solve anything when people can recognize the danger that comes from such a position: why should obedience be the focus rather than actually trying to advance the common good based on evidence even if it contradicts the supposedly perfect laws that one believed we should obey? Confirmation bias is the problem here

 

[stevevw]

Right and wrong is not determined by what the majority thinks.
Barely a generation ago the majority felt that things like racial segregation was perfectly moral and just. It was never moral no matter how many people approved of it.

That depends on what basis you determine morality. For secular morality it is usually about the majority rule. So therefore a generation ago secular society thought it was OK to separate different races. You have to remember secular morality is based on subjectivity and not any objective moral truths you, I or Christians may believe in.

The question arises as to just why those small number of people don't have rights and why you don't view this as a problem.

Because not all minorities who demand rights should be given them. Would you allow the rights of a Muslim who demands his right to practcie his faith by marrying more than one wife. What about if a minority group demanded everyone believe what they believe which included control the majorities use of language and denied people the freedom to express what they think.

you just used the words you are claiming you cannot. How is this possible?

Because I am not the one trying to control langauge. Others are so I am able to use those words. I am saying spme groups want to introduce word control, not that we should go along with it. Even if some try to introduce language control, just like Jordan Petersen did, he refused to go along.

what utter bull

Ok so you obviously are not familiar with some of the radical minorities around who are trying to dismantle traditional families including male/female and father/mother roles. Part of that is attacking the father role as unecessary. In doing so they have used tactics to discredit and undermine the male and father roles. This primarily stems from cultural Marxism and has been fomrulated in radical politics today through certain groups especially in Universities but also by radical feminists and trans groups. IE

"Feminism is to blame for making some men feel marginalized and demonized in society".
A New Poll Has Found A Third Of Young British People Think Feminism Is "Demonising And Marginalising" Men
“The father no longer holds a vital position in the family,”
The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

can't speak about certain topics or can't get away with lying about such topics or the promoting of discrimination or even violence against your above mentioned pushy and nasty minorities.

So you don't think there is any isues with some restricting freedom of speech. Then what about these
The Constitution protects free speech, but internet companies are succumbing to public pressure to restrict it.
Facebook Restricts Speech by Popular Demand

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has tracked this movement closely, and suggests that “39.6 percent of the 449 colleges and universities” it analysed in 2016 “maintain policies that seriously infringe upon the free speech rights of students.”
Why the left needs to re-embrace the First Amendment

more bull. Recognizing that families come in all sorts of shapes and sizes isn't an attack on your "traditional family" (which isn't traditional at all) it's an acknowledgement that all families have value.

No one is denying that al families and individuals have value. It is more about what constitutes as the best family setup that will help society improve individual, family and community welfare. Whatever moral values a society places on what a family should be is what will effect the outcome for individuals, families and communities.

For example we in the west dont support underage marriage because according to us this would allow a young person to potentially be taken advantage of. Yet in other societies it is allowed. So we in the west do restrict some family setups based on the welfare of individuals, families and the community. The science shows that certain family setups are better than others. This would bring better outcomes of wellbeing for individuals, families and communities.

What is the difference between this and the underage marriage situation that we choose to deny in our societies based on the same basis. No one is denying that any family setup should lack value or be denied support. One could argu thyat some of our current policies are harming individuals, families and communities.

For example evidence shows that children from single parent families are more likley to experience problems across a rnage of areas. If we as a society promote policies that make it easy to become a single parent family and while not promoting policies that encourage families to stay together then we are actually promoting family breakdowns.

Why does the government hate stay-at-home mums?
There is not a more undervalued or under-appreciated group of women in this country right now than stay-at-home mums.
We’re for Sydney | Daily Telegraph
How divorce affects children
https://u.osu.edu/mariamabah/how-to-access-a-firms-financial-wealth/

It’s scientific: kids need not just two parents but a mother and father.
It’s scientific: kids need not just two parents but a mother and father.
Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs
Marriage Matters, and Redefining It Has Social Costs - Public Discourse

The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce*
Nearly three decades of research evaluating the impact of family structure on the health and well-being of children demonstrates that children living with their married, biological parents consistently have better physical, emotional, and academic well-being. Consequently, society should make every effort to support healthy marriages and to discourage married couples from divorcing.
The impact of family structure on the health of children: Effects of divorce

anyone taking a couple minutes with Google will find that people have been saying "happy Holiday's for hundreds of years

OK there may be a cultural difference here. I am from Australia and we have always said Merry Christmas. But due to PC in recent years we are beginning to say happy holidays. But the point still stands for all western nations that we are getting rid of traditions we have used for decades because of PC culture. IE

Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture
Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.”
Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture
Traditions such as Christmas celebrations will die out unless people stand up for British values.
Traditions such as Christmas celebrations will die out unless people stand up for British values, government review finds

 

[essentialsaltes]

That depends on what basis you determine morality. For secular morality it is usually about the majority rule. So therefore a generation ago secular society thought it was OK to separate different races. You have to remember secular morality is based on subjectivity and not any objective moral truths you, I or Christians may believe in.

The US government is secular, but that doesn't mean that the majority is motivated by 'secular morality'.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Judge Bazile in a court ruling leading up to Loving v Virginia where the ban on interracial marriage was ultimately struck down.

 

[SilverBear]

That depends on what basis you determine morality. For secular morality it is usually about the majority rule. So therefore a generation ago secular society thought it was OK to separate different races. You have to remember secular morality is based on subjectivity and not any objective moral truths you, I or Christians may believe in.

even a casual look at history shows that segregation was considered to be a religious moral imperative.

Because not all minorities who demand rights should be given them.

so members of minorities don't deserve the same rights as everyone else?

Ok so you obviously are not familiar with some of the radical minorities around who are trying to dismantle traditional families including male/female and father/mother roles. Part of that is attacking the father role as unecessary. In doing so they have used tactics to discredit and undermine the male and father roles. This primarily stems from cultural Marxism and has been fomrulated in radical politics today through certain groups especially in Universities but also by radical feminists and trans groups. IE

"Feminism is to blame for making some men feel marginalized and demonized in society".
A New Poll Has Found A Third Of Young British People Think Feminism Is "Demonising And Marginalising" Men
“The father no longer holds a vital position in the family,”
The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

i'm familiar with the myths you are talking about but you can't show anyone activly doing what you are claiming.

So you don't think there is any isues with some restricting freedom of speech.

you mean like massive campaigns to ban certain books from schools or to prevent student led LGBT groups form at schools?

No one is denying that al families and individuals have value. It is more about what constitutes as the best family setup that will help society improve individual, family and community welfare. Whatever moral values a society places on what a family should be is what will effect the outcome for individuals, families and communities.

to paraphrase Orwell, all families are equal....but some are more equal than others.

For example we in the west dont support underage marriage because according to us this would allow a young person to potentially be taken advantage of. Yet in other societies it is allowed. So we in the west do restrict some family setups based on the welfare of individuals, families and the community.

most states allow for underage marriages, some as young as age 14.

The science shows that certain family setups are better than others. This would bring better outcomes of wellbeing for individuals, families and communities.

most of the research of one kind of family being better shows that when external circumstances such as income or the presence of extended family members are controlled for the outcome differences in different forms of family disappear.

What is the difference between this and the underage marriage situation that we choose to deny in our societies based on the same basis. No one is denying that any family setup should lack value or be denied support. One could argu thyat some of our current policies are harming individuals, families and communities.

For example evidence shows that children from single parent families are more likley to experience problems across a rnage of areas. If we as a society promote policies that make it easy to become a single parent family and while not promoting policies that encourage families to stay together then we are actually promoting family breakdowns.

as noted above the problems you mention associated with single parent families disappear when differences in income are contorted for. It isn't the single parent that produces the negative outcome it's the lack of resources specifically money that produces the negative outcomes.

OK there may be a cultural difference here. I am from Australia and we have always said Merry Christmas. But due to PC in recent years we are beginning to say happy holidays. But the point still stands for all western nations that we are getting rid of traditions we have used for decades because of PC culture. IE

Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture
Among the general population, a full 80 percent believe that “political correctness is a problem in our country.”
Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture
Traditions such as Christmas celebrations will die out unless people stand up for British values.
Traditions such as Christmas celebrations will die out unless people stand up for British values, government review finds

nothing here shows that traditions are being done away with[/quote][/quote]

 

[stevevw]

The US government is secular, but that doesn't mean that the majority is motivated by 'secular morality'.

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Judge Bazile in a court ruling leading up to Loving v Virginia where the ban on interracial marriage was ultimately struck down.

Yes I agree the US constitution is designed for all people to have their say and for the people to be the important factor in determining governments. It allows freedom of religion and thought and the ability to express your beliefs and views under freedom of speech.

The majority may not be motivated by secular morality though this may be more the case nowadays but It is more about what morality is being used by governments. Legislation and rights are underpinned by morals despite what people say. For example if a governments doesnt value the traditional family then policies like easy divorce and making all family structures equally good is based on a moral value. No gobvernment can rule without having a moral basis to the decisions they make. I am saying that in the past western nations were influenced and guided by Christain moral values.

This is reflected in things like the UD declaration, the abolishment of slavery, and Martin Luters civil rights campaigns. It was refelected in western nations language and how we seen the traditional family as important, were against divorce and abortion ect. This has changed in modern times from around the 50's and 60's especially with the big cultural movements of the 60's womens lib and the sexual revolution (liberation).

Today we are rejecting God out of society and becoming more secular and with that we are relying more on the government to be our guide rather than God. We are turning to humans as being the determining factor of human dignity, equality and morality which is more relative/subjective and this is causing a lot of conflict. People are challenging authority and protesting as evidence shows how governments are failing the people. Its not just a case of voting another government in as the entire system is broken and people are becoming disillusioned and angry.

 

[stevevw]

Liberalism is not necessarily evil, nor is an element of individualism, you haven't actually shown that these are some innate wrong rather than being twisted by culture and time

I agree liberalism and individualism is not innately wrong. But they have been as you say twisted by culture and time. That is why I specified radical liberalism and individualism which is at play today.

Christian value doesn't have a monopoly on valuing human dignity and it doesn't originate with them either, especially not in a logical fashion that isn't appealing to an unfalsifiable idea like God as the authoritative basis for it instead of, *gasp*, evidence that supports the idea of human value

First can you tell me what the evidence is for human value. As far as Christian values being unique for western nations Christianity was their choice of religion and that’s all that is important. The US declaration, Lincoln's basis the ending of slavery and Martin Luther King’s basis for civil rights which were about human dignity and equality were based on the fact that humans are created in Gods image and equal under God. This removed human opinion and placed it in God.

That has been recognised and is still the basis of the declaration and law today. We have dignity, value and equality not because humans say but because we all recognise human value is beyond any personal or legal opinion. We intuitively know we are born with dignity as humans. This was unique to Christianity as other beliefs had many gods or hierarchies such as levels of reincarnation or castes which differentiated people and gods as unequals.

Christianity being unfalsifiable is irrelevant as Christians choose these values based on their faith. They believe that following Gods ways is better for society and humankind. It’s not just based on authority but a belief that Gods ways are best for how society can work. The important point is that Christians ‘believe’ this as opposed to allowing any view or other religious beliefs.

Equality and equity are not the same thing, you're confusing equal opportunity with equal outcome, that's not remotely what people want, because there should be a freedom fo choice and upward mobility as a possible outcome

I agree but that is not what is happening. What we are seeing is equality of outcome and identity politics. People are demanding rights because of who they are rather than what is right and fair. This then pits rights against each other and inevitably people against each other. We are seeing this happening with how minority rights are pushed and majority rights are denied in accommodating this.

There will always be influences, no one is saying we can be perfectly neutral, but neutrality is the goal in terms of protecting rights through a democratic system that protects that by majority rule, but acknowledging minority protections as well, they aren't mutually exclusive. But you don't appear to understand that democracy is not just majority agreement, that's ochlocracy, rule by mob

I understand that majority rule is not mob rule. I am saying we are having mob rule to some extent because our democracy is not working. It is no longer a case of a fair vote for what is best according to the people but rather what is best for identities and certain groups.

We have created this situation by elevating individualism above all else. Now we cannot deny minorities even if their demands are opposed to what the majority think and believe. In other words we are not in control of determining what is best for society. It is ruled by political ideologies and whoever can make the most noise or buy influence.

I think it is an inevitable consequence of post modernism and evolving into a secular society along with the wests idea of liberalism and individualism which has become radicalized. Things then become relative and there is no truth. Anyone can make a case for their own ideas about what is truth and my view is all that is important. When we take God out of the picture we then make humans gods and people believe that humans have all the answers.

It's not a climate that is secular society which creates the mistrust of government: more often it is those that assert moral absolutes and think they know better because they can appeal to some "higher power", which is just might makes right.

This is just an outdated stereotype. I think modern society has just about taken God right out of the picture and I think that is the problem. A void is created that is being filled by all sorts of claims by powers to be and individuals all competing for what they believe is true and right. We now rely on subjective/relative views as to what is morally right and wrong. People then begin to question and challenge authority and each other which inevitably lead to contempt and distrust.

Subjective does not mean there cannot be some objective assessments, they just will not be perfect, which is a deluded expectation, to be frank

you may think it is a deluded expectation but this is why people are protesting and demanding to be heard because they all believe there is a truth. The problem is under a subjective atheist secular society there can never to be truth. So people intuitively know there is a truth but are frustrated and confused in a society that tries to pretend there is no truth while promotes certain truths above other truth according to whoever can make the loudest noise or buy power and influence.

That disrespect for others comes from the idea that their freedom that they most often believe is given by a God supersedes the government or even other people's safety. That isn't a secular thing at all, that is a religious ideology that misunderstands freedom as something absolute in a civil society rather than needing to be limited by basic discretion that acknowledges others deserve to feel reasonably secure

This has nothing to do with religion and more to do with post modernism and the way western societies have developed over time in radical individualistic and liberalised cultures. That is political and not religious. What we are seeing with identity politics, the radical leftist ideologies and PC culture have nothing to do with religion.

If anything religious opinion is just one group of many competing for relevance but is certainly not dominating as we have seen with how secular views have won out in recent years such as abortion, same sex marriage etc.

The individualism leads to solipsism, which, again, tends to be manipulated more easily in a religious/supernaturalist ideology that thinks that their revealed divine truth is more valid than someone appealing to independently verifiable evidence

now you’re throwing up religion as the cause at everything. Like I said this is an outdated stereotype. Religious opinion has little relevance today. Individualism is the result of political ideologies that have been around in the modern era. If anything it is the result of the enlightenment period of liberalism. Individualism is the inevitable result of liberalism. It’s just gone radical in recent times in a postmodern world.