Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well, obviously not on this particular issue you don't. Every law is based on morals. Morals are not always based on religion like some people believe. The only way you could have nobody putting morals on anyone else would be to do away with all laws.
Now that I have straightened out your slanted thinking to more rational thinking, I could use some advise on a topic you are more knowledgeable on the best park to see when I visit Utah next year
In the political arena, when one speaks of dictating morality, it is generally accepted as a reference to social conservatism and Biblical based legislation. Common vernacular, my friend.
Obviously the Bible says thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal, but those ideals are virtually universally held by the vast majority of citizens, religious or otherwise. Crimes with demonstrable harm to another human being.
Contrast with abortion. While there may be a sprinkling other religions and cultures in the most vociferous pro-life crowd, the overriding view is that life begins at conception. This view is primarily a Christian belief. So laws banning abortion from conception are as a rule religiously based, ergo imposing a certain value system on a substantial portion of the population that does not agree with it on theological grounds.
You can't "prove" life begins at conception, that a soul exists, through anything but religious belief.
On the other hand, there is more scientifically provable evidence regarding fetal development, the ability to feel pain, the ability to survive if born prematurely etc., and thus opposition to later term abortion can be addressed in non-scriptural terms and may be more universally opposed - because of principles that more people can believe in regardless of spiritual belief.
People differ on whether animals have souls, but cruelty to animals is a crime. Because as a rule we are compassionate enough not to inflict unnecessary pain on living creatures who can feel it.
There is a difference between laws based on the Bible or other religious teachings vs laws based on more universally held non-religious values of compassion and protection of those who cannot protect themselves.
I have rational principles about the proper role of government, and imposing laws almost entirely based on religious belief, is not it. Freedom of religion and all that.
In the political arena, when one speaks of dictating morality, it is generally accepted as a reference to social conservatism and Biblical based legislation. Common vernacular, my friend.
Obviously the Bible says thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal, but those ideals are virtually universally held by the vast majority of citizens, religious or otherwise. Crimes with demonstrable harm to another human being.
Contrast with abortion. While there may be a sprinkling other religions and cultures in the most vociferous pro-life crowd, the overriding view is that life begins at conception. This view is primarily a Christian belief. So laws banning abortion from conception are as a rule religiously based, ergo imposing a certain value system on a substantial portion of the population that does not agree with it on theological grounds.
You can't "prove" life begins at conception, that a soul exists, through anything but religious belief.
On the other hand, there is more scientifically provable evidence regarding fetal development, the ability to feel pain, the ability to survive if born prematurely etc., and thus opposition to later term abortion can be addressed in non-scriptural terms and may be more universally opposed - because of principles that more people can believe in regardless of spiritual belief.
People differ on whether animals have souls, but cruelty to animals is a crime. Because as a rule we are compassionate enough not to inflict unnecessary pain on living creatures who can feel it.
There is a difference between laws based on the Bible or other religious teachings vs laws based on more universally held non-religious values of compassion and protection of those who cannot protect themselves.
I have rational principles about the proper role of government, and imposing laws almost entirely based on religious belief, is not it. Freedom of religion and all that.
Generally accepted?
Yeah, ok, maybe with uneducated sheep, but in reality, morals are morals and it extends beyond abortions my friend.
Regarding abortions, there are restrictions in every state on having late term abortions, so technically choice is restricted because of some arbitrary time. This means that every state is anti choice based on their morals. Nobody has proven either way when the life begins so some arbitrary number was devised
Basically you are stretching to rationalize when you think it is ok to have someone dictate morals dictating to others. If you want to say harm to another human then why is adultery not a crime? How about hurtful words? The mental abuse is every bit as damaging as physical.
As far as religion, it will always be in peoples lives. Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion
Yeah, ok, maybe with uneducated sheep, but in reality, morals are morals and it extends beyond abortions my friend.
Regarding abortions, there are restrictions in every state on having late term abortions, so technically choice is restricted because of some arbitrary time. This means that every state is anti choice based on their morals. Nobody has proven either way when the life begins so some arbitrary number was devised
Basically you are stretching to rationalize when you think it is ok to have someone dictate morals dictating to others. If you want to say harm to another human then why is adultery not a crime? How about hurtful words? The mental abuse is every bit as damaging as physical.
As far as religion, it will always be in peoples lives. Freedom of religion, not freedom from religion
Sorry to tell you
Check the thread title. It's about the a religious wing-nut going psycho over abortion.
I don't believe restrictions on late term abortions are based on an arbitrary number, they're based on the existence of a sentient being by that point. Versus ALL abortion, or even Plan B, that the extremists take issue with. I think there are some things most reasonable people would agree on, if the wingnuts on both sides got out of the way.
Make adultery illegal? The people in a marriage make that commitment to each other, not to the government. OR, shockingly, not even to each other. Apparently it doesn't matter to some people, although I can't fathom it.
Make hurtful words criminal? Check the first amendment. We're already dangerously close to letting the PC police run our lives.
You seem to have me pigeon-holed as someone who is anti-religion, and you would be sadly mistaken. What I am is against the imposition of laws that are predominantly based in certain religions vs other more universal values.
I don't dislike all religious politicians at all. Some I greatly respect. Practicing your religion personally is far different than imposing certain tenets of it under government force.
Check the thread title. It's about the a religious wing-nut going psycho over abortion.
I don't believe restrictions on late term abortions are based on an arbitrary number, they're based on the existence of a sentient being by that point. Versus ALL abortion, or even Plan B, that the extremists take issue with. I think there are some things most reasonable people would agree on, if the wingnuts on both sides got out of the way.
Make adultery illegal? The people in a marriage make that commitment to each other, not to the government. OR, shockingly, not even to each other. Apparently it doesn't matter to some people, although I can't fathom it.
Make hurtful words criminal? Check the first amendment. We're already dangerously close to letting the PC police run our lives.
You seem to have me pigeon-holed as someone who is anti-religion, and you would be sadly mistaken. What I am is against the imposition of laws that are predominantly based in certain religions vs other more universal values.
I don't dislike all religious politicians at all. Some I greatly respect. Practicing your religion personally is far different than imposing certain tenets of it under government force.
You talked about preaching morals..... therefore I mentioned that
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
