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.
Having any ONE religion or a group of people in power is a problem. Is that they typically want everyone every one else to follow the rules they lay down, yet refuses to follow themselves. Which is typical of anyone in power. and what happens to those people of other religions? and the atheist? It's bad enough already that Christians want to tell everyone how to life how to love who they can love & who they can marry. Like many other's I won't be told who to love & who I can't love nor will I give up my religion & worship another person's God. An in the end that's what they want total control over your life.
So in the end they are wanting to take your right's away from you & replace it with their religion.
Just another way to control you.
Where do rights come from, if they don't come from god? What the hell rights are you talking about?
You have as many rights as your government allows you to have. Don't delude yourself.
In a secular state, there is no such thing as morality. Good or evil is only that which serves or opposes the interests of the state. A secular state is nothing more than a ruthless corporation.
"The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.: 1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth. 2. Dupes – a large class, no doubt – each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,”2 and such like absurdities. 3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change." - Lysander Spooner, No Treason, 1867
Where do rights come from, if they don't come from god? What the hell rights are you talking about?
In a secular state, there is no such thing as morality.
[]
As a human being I have every right. It's sad that you believe that only God can give you the right to do anything.
Your second sentence is even more absurd also considering it was your God who created evil. And here I thought you knew the bible.
Morality is pretty simple: "Do unto others...". It pretty much works except for sado-masochists. The "Golden Rule" (and I'm only citing WP for simplicity's sake instead of providing multiple links) is virtually universal. I agree with the premise that without reciprocity, there could not be civilized society. Is that a function of religion or an innate human trait?
I always find it hilarious, that people believe that the problems of this world can be so easily solved.
Especially considering that the solutions they propose, are literally thousands of years old, and have been tried countless times, and have never worked.
The golden rule doesn't work, because it doesn't take into account an individual's values. You must first establish "what is normal?", before you can apply its reasoning. Basically, how you might want to be treated, isn't necessarily the way I want to be treated, and vice versa.
The golden rule applies in the most simplistic of ways. It might, on its surface, say that one shouldn't murder, or steal. But as I said, governments do both. And in fact, governments couldn't even exist without stealing and murdering.
Furthermore, it doesn't say what should happen to the person who breaks the golden rule. Should a murderer himself be murdered? Or should he be thrown in prison? And for how long?
Furthermore, it doesn't address ethical dilemmas in terms of social values.
For instance, should prostitution be legal? Should a prostitute be allowed to sell herself in front of my house? Where should she be allowed to offer her services? What about drug-dealers?
What should government schools be teaching? Should government schools even exist? Why should I be forced to pay for the propagation of ideas that I disagree with? Why should I be forced to hire, or otherwise interact with people I disagree with?
Why does "democracy" have the right to strip me of many of my freedoms, and force me to pay money to support it? On what basis does the golden rule apply?
On such a simplistic basis, the very existence of the state is immoral. And it is, but so what? It changes nothing.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 05-07-2016 at 07:32 AM..
As a human being I have every right. It's sad that you believe that only God can give you the right to do anything.
Your second sentence is even more absurd also considering it was your God who created evil. And here I thought you knew the bible.
"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains" - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
You have every right to do what your government tells you to do. Or to do whatever your government doesn't prohibit you from doing. What other source can your rights possibly come?
Secondly, you misunderstand what I am saying. I said that there was no morality in a secular state. In essence, the state is "amoral". To the secular state, morality consists only of those things which are in the interests of the state.
I'll post this again, until everyone gets it....
"Modern states have reached precisely this point. Christianity serves them only as a pretext or a phrase or as a means of deceiving the idle mob, for they pursue goals which have nothing to do with religious sentiments. The great statesmen of our days, the Palmerstons, the Muravievs, the Cavours, the Bismarcks, the Napoleons, had a good laugh when people took their religious pronouncements seriously. They laughed harder when people attributed humanitarian sentiments, considerations, and intentions to them, but they never made the mistake of treating these ideas in public as so much nonsense. Just what remains to constitute their morality? The interest of the State, and nothing else. From this point of view, which, incidentally, with very few exceptions, has been that of the statesmen, the strong men of all times and of all countries from this point of view, I say, whatever conduces to the preservation, the grandeur and the power of the State, no matter how sacrilegious or morally revolting it may seem, that is the good. And conversely, whatever opposes the State's interests, no matter how holy or just otherwise, that is evil. Such is the secular morality and practice of every State." - Mikhail Bakunin, 1873
Maybe worth noting as well that most of what we know, understand and believe about religion today is born from a time of significant ignorance about most things. We didn't know what caused earthquakes, lightening, plagues, disease. We thought our planet was the center of the universe and didn't even really know what to make of the Sun or the Moon. No clue about dinosaurs. Even men were considered Gods, women another matter. Our way was to worship and fear what we didn't understand. We applied the practice of bloodletting to cure disease, and we burned women at the stake for being witches. Back when religion was being born, there were lots of miracles going on and all sorts of Gods very busy and engaged with us humans. Notice how none of that is going on anymore?
Yet somehow we still believe what we do. I suppose this too is what makes us human. We're just slow to come around, or maybe we're just slow. I'm not sure...
The Church is a physical being, not merely a metaphysical one. The Church, for a lack of a better way to describe it, is a kind of corporation. It is an organization of men, based on some kind of charter/agreement, with physical assets, which depends for its existence on the support and largesse of its members.
In essence, a member of the Church, pays taxes to the Church, in the form of tithes. The more members/citizens/customers a Church has, the more people it can raise money from. And since its proceeds are a percentage of the income of its congregants, the higher its member's income, the more money the Church can raise.
Thus it is necessarily in the interest of the Church, for sake of its own existence, as well as to provide its social-services and other community functions, to encourage its congregants to work, earn money, and give a portion of their money to the Church. The more they work, and the more money they make, the better-off the Church will be.
...
If you've ever been in a Church, you'll realize just how "regimented" its services are. It teaches people to follow commands, to do what they are told. They tell you to stand up, sit down, sing, walk over here, walk back, sit down, stand up, waiting quietly and patiently. They are conditioning your mind to be another obedient worker/follower/slave.
What is civilization? What is it to be civilized? In short, civilization is about "obeying authority". It is about subordinating your will, to that of your rulers. And the Church has been the primary civilizing force throughout human history. And the Church is being slowly superceded by the indoctrinating powers of the state, and its "state education" system. Which itself only exists to create loyal and obedient workers and soldiers(IE citizens).
...
I think you have this argument backward. Church is not a corporation, corporation is based on the hierarchical nature of the Church in the West (see the root of corporation, like much of the bureaucratic language mangled in the hands of writers). When Constantine was desperate to prop up the Roman Empire in the West, he didn't turn to the factors & grain-merchants - he went to the Church, with its flat but efficient bureaucracy, its clear lines of authority, its organization @ the parish level, its literate leadership & copyists.
As for tithes, I grew up in a different tradition. The social-services provided by the Church - orphanages, hospitals, schools, soup lines & so on - are not the defining purpose of the Church. They're understood to be corollaries to the metaphysical concerns of the theology - a way of putting those values into action, & of signifying God's will on Earth, through human vessels.
Yah, organized religion in the West tends to be about obedience, right enough. Although the terms of the bargain have become less draconian, with time.
But that brings us to a contradiction in this line of argument: If the Church is merely the velvet glove for the iron fist of the State, Why should we care or attend to the Church's take on morality? If morality is just a shell game to disguise the machinery of the State, & to dupe the masses into acting like sheep, while the chosen few feast on the labor of the underclass - Where is the morality in that?
Ultimately here, you're arguing for a secular, humanist POV in government & ethics. If the religious sources of morality & law-giving are inherently corrupt or even just humanly susceptible to rent-taking - Why should we build our society's ethics on such a foundation of sand? The least change in the tides, & we'll have the elites fleeing to Panama to pick up their ill-garnered gains. & leaving us up Sche-iss Creek without a paddle.
A nation cannot be Christian. Only individual people, or a community of individuals gathered together in a shared faith (the church), can be Christian. One of my biggest complaints about a lot of Evangelical Republicans is their conflation of church and state. It is not up to the state to enforce Christian values. That is the job of the church. Hearing a politician like Ted Cruz pontificate on "protecting" America's "Christian values" makes me ill. What they really want is some vague return to an idealized past that never really existed. By some measures, the United States was more outwardly "Christian" in the early 19th century than it is today. But that was also a time when slavery was legal, women had few if any rights, child labor was common, and the Native Americans were being slaughtered. None of those things could be even remotely considered a Christian value.
A nation cannot be Christian. Only individual people, or a community of individuals gathered together in a shared faith (the church), can be Christian. One of my biggest complaints about a lot of Evangelical Republicans is their conflation of church and state. It is not up to the state to enforce Christian values. That is the job of the church. Hearing a politician like Ted Cruz pontificate on "protecting" America's "Christian values" makes me ill. What they really want is some vague return to an idealized past that never really existed. By some measures, the United States was more outwardly "Christian" in the early 19th century than it is today. But that was also a time when slavery was legal, women had few if any rights, child labor was common, and the Native Americans were being slaughtered. None of those things could be even remotely considered a Christian value.
Agree with much of what you've written here! Some folks use the past to validate their present day political beliefs. The United States of America began with a paradox, E Pluribus Unum,
Out of many, one
or One out of many
or One from many.
This was our de facto motto from 1782 until 1956 when ...
I'm not a Christian or even religious, but clearly America was better when it was a more Christian nation. Most people need religion in their lives to have a moral code and Christianity worked well in America for the most part. The current state of decadence and depravity that has become the norm in America doesn't lead to a healthy or stable society.
Embracing the Jewish community was very progressive for its day, Dark. I have zero doubts that the founding fathers would protect the civil liberties of Muslim Americans today. They would not favor religious based immigration quotas. America was not designed to be a "Christian" nation or as historical revisionist now say "Judaeo Christian" nation. It was established as a religious neutral nation.
Our values can best be summed up as freedom, reason and tolerance. Any religious values that don't conflict with these are welcome too.
I highlighted for you the very obvious flaw in your reasoning, which you apparently overlook.
Now, let's address what Muslims lack relative to those values of freedom, reason, and tolerance.
By any "reason-able" assessment, Islam has, and continues to prove beyond any "reason-able" doubt, it's inflexable unwillingness to embrace freedom and tolerance. It is this fact that precludes it from being compatible with those stated American/Christian values. Islam is indeed the anti-freedom, anti-tollerance" religion, to the extreme degree of labeling all non-muslims as "Infedels", while simultaneously exhibiting it's disdain for freedom by its lengthy list of prohibited actions, to include such common activities as a male shaving his face, or a female showing her face in public, among the countless others.
Only the dreadfully diseased mind of a liberal can reconcile the extreme contradiction in insisting that we must be " tolerant of intolerance".
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.
Eyeless in Gaza
