31 Aug 06
Originally posted by no1marauderOne of my other arttilces pointed out that, "In comparison with other generations, today's children and youth are seemingly MORE lacking in decency, integrity, concern for others and morality." This is my main conern. I am not attempting to imply that the morality of the past generations did not have serious flaws such as racist overtones. What I am trying to point out is that despite these flaws, it was preferable to teach children a moral code of some kind in order to avoid the above problems that we see today despite the racist overtones that were undesirable. There is and always be room for improvement in regards to the morality of a given society we live in. No society is without sin, however, a society that pretends to ignore that sin exists is prone to see those sins go unchecked.
Not so fast there Sport; you have constantly claimed that this country has less "morality" because it doesn't teach the Bible and Christian BS in the public schools. YOU cited to the McGuffey Reader as a source of "morality" and, in fact, other Fundamentalist Christians are still praising it. Yet, it is rife with racism, anti-Semitism and other types of ...[text shortened]... d our "morality" that such crap isn't part and parcel of what kids are taught in school?
31 Aug 06
2 edits
Originally posted by NemesioWhat I am saying is that morality devoid of God is then based upon man. God's morality is absolute but mans morality is relative. We see this as men's morality has shifted more than once over the years. Hundreds of years ago the moral concensus was racism was morally acceptable. About 70 years ago it was the consensus of a given society that persecuting Jews was morally acceptable if not mandatory. Today, for example, it is the consensus that abortion is morally acceptable. However, just 30-40 years ago the concensus was that abortion was not morally acceptable. Who is to say who is right? Is abortion not in conflict with your moral code of treating everyone the same and doing no harm to them? If I recall, it is very similar to the saying, "Do unto others as they would do unto you." I think we all know where this saying comes from, no? If you agree with this moral code then you are embracing a moral code that is embraced by the God of the Bible whether you like it or not. Would you have liked to have been aborted yourself? If the answer is no, then do unto others my friend.
If you lack the capacity to differentiate between a society that (ostensibly) abhors slavery
and one that embraced it, then why should we take your position seriously at all? That is,
if you are advocating a position of total moral relativity or the application of morals on
arbitrary criteria, then you have no compelling argument for your own moral stan ...[text shortened]... ]has[/i] to be founded on God,
you've certainly failed to demonstrate such a claim.
Nemesio
You see one can get around this moral code of doing unto others as they would do unto you by "dehumanizing" people. During the racist time of the slaves, the implication was that they were nothing more than glorified animals. During the time of the Holocaust, it was implied that the Jews were the cause of all of the evil within society and were referred to as vermon. Currently the unborn are not referred to as a developing human baby, rather, they are referred to as a developing fetus and a "choice".
31 Aug 06
Originally posted by whodey
What I am saying is that morality devoid of God is then based upon man.
This is not the same as saying that 'morality devoid of God is based upon man's opinion.
That is, a morality of a human (or god) could be depraved and sick. God's morality is only
absolute because that is how you define God -- unchanging. Well, that's sure convenient!
However, a morality based on reason is going to be just as unchanging as opposed
to the 'moral consensus' you cite, which is either 'current convention' (which is certainly
dynamic) or 'convenience' (which is just as fickle).
Reason doesn't 'depend' on humankind; 2+2=4 in a decimal system no matter what anyone
thinks or whether there is anyone to think about it at all. The process of reasoning is just
as much higher than humankind as God is (and, indeed, I personally feel that Logos
as a philosophical term incorporates this).
That is, the justification for persecution of the Jews (or blacks) went something like this:
'We don't like the Jews because they are different. Why are they different? I dunno, just
because they are.'
That's not an argument based on reason -- indeed, it creates arbitrary (opined) distinctions
between group A and group B. Yes, the way people confused the issue was to equate group
A with animals, but no logical reasons supported such a conclusion.
So, no 'God' is required to create an absolute morality. One based on reason is just as
unchanging.
Nemesio
P.S., If you want to get into an abortion debate, start another thread. It will only clog up
this one.
31 Aug 06
Originally posted by NemesioIf one exists.
However, a morality based on reason is going to be just as unchanging as opposed to the 'moral consensus' you cite, which is either 'current convention' (which is certainly dynamic) or 'convenience' (which is just as fickle)... So, no 'God' is required to create an absolute morality. One based on reason is just as unchanging...
To be unchanging, it would have to be founded on pure reason.
31 Aug 06
Originally posted by lucifershammerYes. And, as imperfect interpreters of pure reason*, we are
To be unchanging, it would have to be founded on pure reason.
bound to fail at times until someone with a clearer understanding of
that pure reason* comes around to point out our error.
Nemesio
*You may substitute 'God' in here, if you like, but I don't care if you
don't.
01 Sep 06
Originally posted by NemesioI'm not sure I made myself clear earlier. Apologies.
Yes. And, as imperfect interpreters of pure reason*, we are
bound to fail at times until someone with a clearer understanding of
that pure reason* comes around to point out our error.
Nemesio
*You may substitute 'God' in here, if you like, but I don't care if you
don't.
By 'pure reason', I'm referring to a priori truths like the results of mathematics or logic (as opposed to a posteriori truths like the results of empirical sciences), truths that are either self-evident or can be logically derived from self-evident truths by any sufficiently intelligent being.
Do you believe that such an a priori morality exists? If so, why?
You may substitute 'God' in here, if you like, but I don't care if you
don't.
I'm not even sure what this means. Are you saying you do care if I substitute 'God' in there?
Which I don't intend to, anyway.
01 Sep 06
2 edits
Originally posted by rwingett"Your standards are in decline. I know this and think it's a good thing."
Group of standards (A) and group of standards (B), while being different from each other need not be mutually exclusive. They could have much overlap between them. Because I reject (B) as a whole does not mean I reject every standard within the overall grouping.
You don't reject every standard within the over all grouping, okay.
You are of the opinion that it is a good thing my standards are in
a decline, okay.
You want to cherry pick what you think is okay within my standards
to agree with. Okay, we have established that there is in deed a
decline in standards going on now, at least they are according to
you.
After thinking about it, I would say it is the people that are falling
short from living up to the standards, not that the standards are in
a decline. I'm not sure how you define standards, but I'm sure that
there is some 'reason' to it, which in my opinion really isn't a standard
under the conditions I normally use the word if it changes to suit
someone's personal taste at the moment. Which again means that
without fixed standard if you have one that fluctuates you simply
cannot know if you are falling or not, because you drag your standard
with you to suit your desires at the moment. You cannot know you are
falling down if you don’t know where up is.
Kelly
02 Sep 06
Originally posted by amannionNo. Fundementalist christians (usually creationists) believe that science discredits the fundemental truth of the bible. Allowing the slimey god botherers access to school to corrupt young minds will not alter their distrust of science by one iota.
Could it be that this pillar of the American constitution is what has led to the deabtes between scientists and creationists?
Religion and religious thought has been pushed so far from the mainstream of education, that Creationists have attempted to bring it back by renaming it science.
What if we were to allow more open dialogue about religion?
What if we were to allow prayer if people wanted?
Might we see less animosity towards science?
02 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodeyWhat an outrageous post. Why do you equate christianity and spirituality to the exclusion of all other forms of personal developement
What about Bible classes taught in a Christian school or praying in a Chrisitan school? Is this appropriate or must an education be devoid of spirituality to be appropriate?
02 Sep 06
Originally posted by KellyJaybalderdash
No one wants "the state" or "the church" telling anyone how to think
about everything so having those separated is a good thing. The
trouble is that now it seems lines are now being drawn in what is
"the state's" power and right to say something and 'the church' right
to say something and it is going into ever area of people's life. Now the
battle fiel ...[text shortened]... s where a penny
of state money is being used, again my opinion, nothing more.
Kelly
02 Sep 06
Originally posted by ivanhoeI cannot believe that any school (certainly in the UK) would teach that abortion is ok and that euthanasia is ok.
What about if the school is going to teach that abortion is ok and that euthanasia is ok ?
I am aware of schools (in the UK) where children are told that non christians go to hell. Is that OK by you?
02 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodeyPart of a school's role is to develope children to prepare them for society. This includes teaching the difference between acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. In most cases the boundaries are well defined and non controversial eg violence is unacceptable. In those instances where the boundaries are blurred or differing groups hold different views a good school will put the issues in front of the children at an appropriate age and encourage them to make their own decisions in the light of their own developing morality. This process does not require a chistian ethos.
Is teaching morals not an important aspect to a child's education? If so, who's morals do you go by? I am not only talking about abortion and euthenasia here. I know of a situation where an inner city school had a child that was sexually attacked by one of her peers in study hall. Do you know what one of the responses of the teacher who was suppose to be ...[text shortened]... tacking onther student is "wrong". Is there something not terribly wrong with this picture?
02 Sep 06
Originally posted by amannionSchools are a place where children learn social behaviour and societal values. These are pillars of morality
It's not a school's job to teach morality.
Morality is determined by the society and the culture of the area in which the school resides.
It's initial teaching should be the role of parents.
Now of course, there are many children living in situations where parents aren't going to be able to teach any sort of useful moral framework. What do we do in these situations?
I think we need to work on teaching parents how to be parents ...
02 Sep 06
Originally posted by amannionGood post.
Kids spend maybe 6 hours a day at school for 5 days each week.
That's 30 hours a week.
Assuming they sleep for 8 or 9 hours a day (unlikely for teenagers, but let's be generous) that's another 63 hours a week.
All up each week has 168 hours.
30 in school.
63 sleeping.
That still leaves 75 hours.
School time is less than 18% of their week.
I'm ti ...[text shortened]... don't need to play off morality against knowledge.
They are both equally important ...
02 Sep 06
Originally posted by whodey?????
I would agree, this is a good start. However, do we limit the teaching of morality to that of personal conduct within the school setting? Should we introduce classes that teach them about morality that will influence them once they get out in the real world?
Also, it seems to me that the morality of the general culture has changed over the years. You ne ...[text shortened]... than we were before the seperation of church and state became law in our schools? What say you?
The separation of state and church in the US is enshrined in First Amendment. Thats a lot longer than 30 years ago (I thought). If you wanted to deal with the morality of general culture in the US I'd have thought that religion was low on the list compared to social exclusion, racism, poverty, materialist consumer culture, gun control, corporate rape of the environment, militarism, imperialist war mongering and electing an idiot to lead your country.