1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThe sort of tradition and bigotry that puts gays in jail certainly is.
Maybe, but do you really think that tradition and bigotry are devoid of morality?
And in general, I would say that tradition and bigotry are both incompatible with proper moral deliberation since they both involve willful irrationality.
Originally posted by whodeyIf you are incapable of respecting the fact that not all your constituents share your particular brand of morality then you are not fit for public office.
Now, now, there is no need to make this thread into a shouting match. I have been called worse and treated far worse than this, trust me. I understand that he is phobic in terms of religion in general and when the thought of those in authority over him might be religious or swayed by them the thought of it is to much to endure.
Having said that, he does ...[text shortened]... er insults such as his I get the impression that I may be hitting to close to home, so to speak.
2 edits
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesAgain, I am not arguing that these positions are "proper" moral positions, rather, I am merely pointing out that they are moral positions.
The sort of tradition and bigotry that puts gays in jail certainly is.
And in general, I would say that tradition and bigotry are both incompatible with proper moral deliberation since they both involve willful irrationality.
This then leads us to what is "proper" in terms of moral law because ALL of our laws are moral positions. To say that one cannot legislate morality is to say that legislation must be devoid of morality which is, in itself, an impossibility. Having said that, as a society, how do we decide what is "good" for society? Make no mistake about it, no matter the law or laws decided upon, there will always be a segment of the population that may disagree. What makes one position more righteous than the other in terms of how one decides what is a "proper" moreal stance? Should majority rule in such situations or should both the majority and minority have a say or should we elect people to decide these things for us?
2 edits
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou raise a good point in that for one to object to homosexual unions, one is probably doing so based soley upon the Bible and/or other religious documents. The only other way to attack such unions would be to show evidence as to how it "harms" society. Again, laws that are on the books in secular governments tend to refect the moral ideal of doing unto others as they would have done unto you. The question then would be asked in a secular government, how is a homosexual union doing harm to me or anyone else?
I would suggest that homosexuality is biblically wrong, but not morally so. Any law to ban homosexuality would thus be morally bankrupt.
Having said that, do realize that abortion is the number one core issue within the Christian right. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, are to a lesser degree an issue. As for myself, I would find a middle ground for those who object to such unions and those who do not. To do so I would qualify the term marriage as only referring to a union between a man and a woman, however, homosexuals could still be afforded the same rights as married couples but only under a different term such as civil unions etc. Is my stance a correct moral stance in your opinion? My position both protects the term marriage to mean what it has traditionally ment over the years and at the same time not violate the rights of homosexuals.
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo what I am hearing you say is that "fundamentalists" have no rhyme or reason for their moral stances, rather, they are simply reitorating what their religious book tells them to do? This is the difference between Dr. King and themselves, is this what you are saying? Within the confines of such a moral stance it would seem that the individual who can provide the best most persausive reasons for taking a moral stance should win. Is this your position?
Actually, I think there is a huge difference between Dr. King and your average yahoo from that segment of the right who wants dissolution of separation of church and state. The average yahoo's allegiance tends to be oriented toward fundamentalism, where mere conformity to doctrinal account is given higher priority than the understanding and virtues that the ...[text shortened]... mpassion, courage, justice, and the like. He bears no resemblance to the average yahoo above.[/b]
Originally posted by kirksey957Let me ask you kirksey, what morals, if any, should be taught to children in school? Should no morals be taught since not everyone may agree or should the majority rule? If morality should not be taught, are you not making a moral statement by not trying to make one? By actively not taking a moral stance are you not taking a moral stance?
OK, good question. Chuck Norris and his wife, Gina, are advocating and working to get a Bible-based cirriculum in every public school. They endorse Huckabee for president.
Originally posted by whodeyThe ability to check your personal religious beliefs at the door from 9 to 5. The ability to be totally impartial in regard to your constituent's religious beliefs, or lack thereof. The ability to represent the interests of all your constituents, and not just the ones who attend your church. And most of all, while in your official capacity, the ability to respect the sanctity of the Constitution above that of the bible.
So tell me, what is the criterea for begin "fit" for public office?
If you can't do that then join the ministry instead of running for public office.
Originally posted by whodeyYou appear to have answered yourself, though I think you got is slightly wrong. You appear to have equated "doing unto others as they would have done unto you." with "do not harm others in society". They are not equivalent.
What makes one position more righteous than the other in terms of how one decides what is a "proper" moreal stance?
The only other way to attack such unions would be to show evidence as to how it "harms" society. Again, laws that are on the books in secular governments tend to refect the moral ideal of doing unto others as they would have done unto you. ...[text shortened]... be asked in a secular government, how is a homosexual union doing harm to me or anyone else?
As for myself, I would find a middle ground for those who object to such unions and those who do not. To do so I would qualify the term marriage as only referring to a union between a man and a woman, however, homosexuals could still be afforded the same rights as married couples but only under a different term such as civil unions etc. Is my stance a correct moral stance in your opinion? My position both protects the term marriage to mean what it has traditionally ment over the years and at the same time not violate the rights of homosexuals.
You are on the one hand claiming that their rights are not infringed if they cant use the word 'marriage' whilst simultaneously claiming that your rights would be infringed if they did use it. Surely there is a contradiction/double standard in there somewhere? My experience when discussing the issue with Christians is that there is disagreement about what the term 'marriage' has 'traditionally meant'. I remember in Zambia, some people seemed to think that Christianity had sole ownership of the word.
Don't forget that even traditionally, polygamists do get married (still legal in Zambia). There was a thread last year referencing a story about a man in India who 'married' a dog. It implied that in parts of India, it is a traditionally acceptable practice. So whose traditions win out?
Originally posted by rwingettIn Africa we settle for a lot less because the people you are describing either don't exist here or don't run for office.
The ability to check your personal religious beliefs at the door from 9 to 5. The ability to be totally impartial in regard to your constituent's religious beliefs, or lack thereof. The ability to represent the interests of all your constituents, and not just the ones who attend your church. And most of all, while in your official capacity, the ability to respect the sanctity of the Constitution above that of the bible.
The previous president of Zambia declared Zambia a Christian nation. He was a very corrupt president and has since been heavily criticized and taken to court etc. He recently however made the statement that he does not worry about all that because he signed a covenant with God when he declared Zambia a Christian nation.
Originally posted by twhiteheadObviously democracy has gotten off to a rocky start in Africa. But that is still the standard that should be aspired to. Perhaps they have to suffer under a few theocrats before they see the value of the separation of church and state.
In Africa we settle for a lot less because the people you are describing either don't exist here or don't run for office.
The previous president of Zambia declared Zambia a Christian nation. He was a very corrupt president and has since been heavily criticized and taken to court etc. He recently however made the statement that he does not worry about all that because he signed a covenant with God when he declared Zambia a Christian nation.
5 edits
Originally posted by rwingettSo you are essentially saying that no one is fit for public office? I know of no one who represents ALL their constituents all the time nor do I know of anyone who has the ability to be impartial 100% of the time nor do I know of anyone who checks their morals at the door. The mere fact that you say one should disregard their religious beliefs and uphold the constitution is a moral statement in and of itself. I guess so long as morals are devoid of the God equation then morals are OK to have, no?
[b]The ability to check your personal religious beliefs at the door from 9 to 5. The ability to be totally impartial in regard to your constituent's religious beliefs, or lack thereof. The ability to represent the interests of all your constituents, and not just the ones who attend your church. And most of all, while in your official capacity, the ability to respect the sanctity of the Constitution above that of the bible.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe right to refer to marriage as between a man and a woman would be infringed upon because it would no longer mean this particular union. In fact, I could marry my car if I so desired. I think it is merely a right to have terms have meaning and clarity rather than ambiguity
You are on the one hand claiming that their rights are not infringed if they cant use the word 'marriage' whilst simultaneously claiming that your rights would be infringed if they did use it. Surely there is a contradiction/double standard in there somewhere? My experience when discussing the issue with Christians is that there is disagreement about what th ...[text shortened]... parts of India, it is a traditionally acceptable practice. So whose traditions win out?[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettIt seems to me that you view suffering in terms of religion being involved in politics. I think your ideal world would be if there were no religion in the world whatsoever. Then we would enter into some type of utoipia or better world. I think we all have a devil or that which we think causes the world to run amock. It appears that God is your devil, no?
Obviously democracy has gotten off to a rocky start in Africa. But that is still the standard that should be aspired to. Perhaps they have to suffer under a few theocrats before they see the value of the separation of church and state.
Originally posted by whodeyCan you really not see a difference between marriage between two men or two women and a marriage between you and a car?
The right to refer to marriage as between a man and a woman would be infringed upon because it would no longer mean this particular union. In fact, I could marry my car if I so desired. I think it is merely a right to have terms have meaning and clarity rather than ambiguity
Why do you have a problem with the meaning of marriage (according to the law at least) be simply two people who want to be married? I mean, other than the ridiculous slippery slope argument that it'll lead to marriage between people and dogs, etc...
The same kind of argument can be made about the anti-miscegenation laws that basically defined marriage as a man and a woman except they added "of the same race." In fact, the bible was used to justify them too.
I am not in favor of forcing churches to recognize gay marriages. If they want to maintain their prejudice, that is their right. However, the government should not be taking on a definition of marriage that is primarily rooted in religion.