Flying the flag of our faith
The culture wars have been waged by the secular progressive left for decades. The ill effects upon our society at large have been taking hold. Only lately have parents been exposed to and repulsed by the content of what is being crammed down our children’s throats. It’s great to see religious people of all religions standing up to this and defending our kids and our culture. The last ditch battle to preserve and protect our history, traditions, and culture is engaged.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Flying the flag of our faith
Sadly, the secularization of America shows no signs of slowing. As we approach the holiest time of the year for Christians with Easter approaching, the alarming statistics reveal that three-in-ten U.S. adults (29%) are now “nones” — not affiliated with any religious group and describe themselves as atheists, agnostics, or “nothing in particular.”
According to the most recent Pew Research Center survey of the religious composition of the United States, this statistic is an alarmingly six percentage points higher than it was five years ago and 10 points higher than a decade ago.
Today, Christians make up 63% of the adult population and outnumber religious “nones” by a ratio of two-to-one. But in 2007, when Pew began asking questions about religious identity, Christians outnumbered “nones” by almost five-to-one (78% vs. 16%).
Even more troubling is the trend among young people. The latest statistics indicate that only 40% of Americans 18-29 years of age believe religion is essential to one’s life. Even less, 17%, participate in regular Scripture reading, religious education, or prayer.
What is happening to our society?
Parents, what are we teaching our children to believe? Nothing? The Bible tasks us with “training up a child in the way they should go.”
In what way should they go? Many parents have recently been awakened to some of the concepts their children are being taught in public schools — that you can choose your gender, that the country was founded on racism, that it’s preferred to kill your baby in the womb rather than subject your child to the fatalism of climate change, that there is no absolute truth; it’s all just shades of gray.
No wonder we have record numbers of “nones.”
While we thought our children were being taught to read and write, they were being taught values that are contrary to the Word of God. Make no mistake; there are people who have an agenda for our children, and they are not ashamed of their Gospel.
And their agenda is relentless; it has captured the media, big tech, and the culture who all are reinforcing the same messages children learn in school. Our children may go to church one hour a week but are subject to other influences the other 167.
The Left makes no apologies for their beliefs; they wear it as a badge of honor. How many Coexist bumper stickers have you seen? Go organic, save the bay, save the planet? Where are the bumper stickers showing our faith?
Over the last two years, we’ve seen many Black Lives Matter signs in yards all over the country, support for the first responders during COVID; there’s even a sign in my neighborhood saying “We Love Dr. Fauci.”
Every June, Americans see rainbow flags everywhere to honor Gay Pride Month. Companies change their logo on their websites, government buildings and our U.S. embassies fly the flag, people wear rainbow t-shirts, and the flag is flown over houses all over the country.
Where is our Christian pride? Pride in our faith?
Why aren’t Christians as adamant about letting the world know about the most important thing in their lives?
Concerned Women for America is declaring April as “Faith Month” and calling on all people of faith to display their faith on their homes, at their desks, on their cars. April is the time we observe Holy Week, Passover, and Easter and the perfect opportunity to fly the Christian flag over your home. There is a Christian flag, a Jewish flag, and other symbols that can make our faith known to others.
We are also calling on legislators to recognize April as Faith Month. If 70% of the American people claim a religious affiliation, surely our elected bodies could recognize a month to honor their history and heritage.
Presidents have done it. All U.S. presidents, from George Washington to Joe Biden, have acknowledged America’s faith and our many blessings from God. The country’s founding documents and laws are based on moral principles that come from the Bible.
In Matthew 5:16 , Jesus encouraged His followers to “[L]et your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven.” By making our faith known to others, and flying the flag of our faith, we are committed to following those words.
Penny Nance is the President and CEO of Concerned Women for America, the nation’s largest public policy organization for women. She is a recognized national authority on cultural, children’s and women’s issues.
Tags
Who is online
624 visitors
And their agenda is relentless; it has captured the media, big tech, and the culture who all are reinforcing the same messages children learn in school. Our children may go to church one hour a week but are subject to other influences the other 167.
The Left makes no apologies for their beliefs; they wear it as a badge of honor. How many Coexist bumper stickers have you seen? Go organic, save the bay, save the planet? Where are the bumper stickers showing our faith?
Over the last two years, we’ve seen many Black Lives Matter signs in yards all over the country, support for the first responders during COVID; there’s even a sign in my neighborhood saying “We Love Dr. Fauci.”
Flown with loyalty and honor..
Fly it at home or your church where that rag belongs. It doesn't belong on taxpayer-supported property such as public schools, city hall, parks or other government properties.
???
Christians display their faith every day. They build big honking buildings dedicated to the worship of Jesus Christ and put giant crosses on top of them. You probably can’t identify a gay pride building or a BLM building, but you sure know where the Christian churches are.
Christians also wear crosses for jewelry in the form of earrings or necklaces. They get crosses tattooed on their bodies. They put crosses on their cars in the form of stickers. I fail to see the problem.
The structure and what is on it is hardly the best tool to persuade or advocate something. It involves much more than shallow symbolism. That’s why the better late than never parents protests to school boards and blue city and state leaders is much more effective. An hour on Friday, Saturday, or Sunday is nowhere near enough.
I’m sorry, but did you just call a church and its cross “shallow symbolism???”
The whole argument in this seed, and one of your own comments, is about symbolism. For example:
Flags, logos, t-shirts. Isn’t that symbolism? And then you posted your own flag with a cross.
Make up your mind. Is symbolism important or not?
I swear, some people just want to be unhappy, no matter how irrational they have to be to achieve it.
Not in and of themselves but an excessively ornate or rich display of a building with a cross covered in gold is shallow compared to the witness of the people who actually attend a church and the examples they provide a community. A plain white church with a simple steeple and active caring members will witness far more than an ornate church with a gold cross and stained glass everywhere if the members of the latter are casual at best in their Christianity
Only if their witness includes snake handlers!
How many of the 2.4B handle snakes?
That’s a reasonable point of view, but your whole comment and the approach I quoted in the article was basically, “where are our cheap symbols?”
By the way, modern mega churches notwithstanding, the elaborate churches built throughout history (think of the gothic cathedrals) were meant to inspire worship and celebrate the glory of God. There was nothing “shallow” about them.
WTF are these allegedly concerned parents protesting?
Tolerance? Diversity? Inclusion?
Look at it this way, Tessy. How would you feel if your kids were subjected to beliefs you didn't want them subjected to? Like, Jesus is the only way to God, or, Jesus loves you and wants you to follow him. How tolerant, diverse or inclusive would you be about that?
The gop is gunning for LGTB and women's rights.
They want gays unmarried and women pregnant...
Watch A Handmaid's Tale for your free previews!
Some people are not happy unless they can make someone else miserable.
[deleted]
There were always doomsaying deadenders proclaiming the world was going to hell in a handbasket. This new century has a long way to go to pass the last one for pure meanness, evil, hatred and wanton destruction...
How? You are free to worship as you please. There’s no difficulty about it at all. All the false victimhood is embarrassing for a faith with a rich history of courage in the face of actual oppression.
This new century has a long way to go to pass the last one for pure meanness, evil, hatred and wanton destruction...
Exactly, Armenia, Russian Revolution, two world wars, Soviet and Chinese starvation, Killing Fields, Rwanda, Etc.
I agree with that, but it’s still painful to watch when it happens. The difference today is there is way less societal pressure to be part of the Christian community. So new generations of free thinkers can observe the cruelty and say “fuck that!”
The World is saying "Fuck That" to Vlad Putin!
Nobody gives a furry Fig Newton about your religious beliefs, but keep them, to yourself because everyone else has equal religious beliefs to yours. If you want to fly a Christian flag at your home, your church, or your business that is your right but it cannot be flown on public schools city hall or any other property or building that is owned by the government or funded by taxpayer dollars. Your religious beliefs will not be taught in public school as fact and we do not allow any other religion to do it either.
Can Muslims, Pagans, Hindus, Buddhists, Pastafarians, Satanists, and every other religion do the same thing to you and your religion that you want to w do to everyone one with your Christian faith?. They will legislate their beliefs as you are trying to do. Teach their beliefs in public schools and matte you follow their religion as public policy as you seem to do to others.
All you need to do is to obey the separation of chich and state and nobody will complain when you set your hair or even yourself on fire because some nutjob minster convinced you that god demanded you to do so.
They don't want that though. I saw a republican candidate the other day that said his religion and God's law was above the constitution.
They need to read and understand the writings of the framers, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
This latter has been used by the SCOTUS for 150 years to define the Establishment Clause that creates a wall of separation between church and state. The US was not created in any form as a religious country or a Christian country. Keep your myths to yourselves p[people and we won't care what you believe in, even if it is a rusty Edsel hubcap and 3 broken Star Wars Pez dispensers.
The same goes for you. The secular left and atheists push their "religion" and di everything in their power to see that everyone follows it
Yet you insist that your atheistic secular religious views are.
That is a BS argument and you know it.
First I fixed your typo. Your welcome.
The separation of church and state was not meant to keep the church out of state but to keep the state out of the churches business.
Remember one of the first things the new Congress did after adopting the Constitution was to install the position of Congressional Chaplain, a religious post. Also the Congress starts each session with a prayer to the Almighty to bless the proceeding of Congress and to grant it's member the wisdom necessary to properly govern the country.
So show me where it restricts the church from engaging in the affairs of the government.
Ooohhh! One Republican said something so that means all Republicans believe the same thing. Wow!
Why not? You all think that about Democrats.
Ah another whataboutism, BS non answer response [deleted]
Another whataboutism? There wasn't even a question asked....
Difficult for you how?
You cannot possibly push a religion that doesn't exist. Logic 101. I dare you to prove that secular humanism is being taught in any public school. I didn't even know it existed until about 25 years ago.
How do you teach secular atheists' views as an alternative to Christianity in any public school or public policy?
The strict separation of church and state was meant to keep religion out of government and government out of religion at all levels and at all uses of taxpayer dollars. We all cannot possibly have equal religious beliefs if the state is supporting religious belief over nonbelief or supporting one religion or sect over the other unless others do not have the same religious and secular rights that you do? How are your religious rights, which are the right to believe or not to believe and the right to worship as you see fit impacted by the strict separation of church and state? How outraged would you be if the state forced you to obey and support the religion of others, despite your religious beliefs?
What "religion" would that be? What are its tenets? Is it recognized as a religion by the government?
Where is that happening? Religion or the lack of it should not be taught in schools, except possibly for mythology.
How so? Can you refute it?
Wrong! Separation works both ways and it must. Otherwise it becomes meaningless. The Founding Fathers and the Constitution, along with established legal precedents, makes that abundantly clear.
A poor practice and one which James Madison opposed. But if that's the best example you have, then you really have nothing.
The 1st Amendment for starters.
It was not meant to keep religion out of government. It was meant to keep government out of religion. Jefferson even indicated as much in his letter to the elders of the Danbury Babysit church.
I guess keeping religion out of government is why one of the first things Congress did after adopting the Constitution was to create the position of Congressional Chaplain and why they start each session with a prayer.
Please cite the passage that makes that claim.
So he opposed it. Is that supposed to mean something? The majority of the others in Congress at that time supported it. Also there has been no successful challenge to the Chaplain position or the prayer.
Actually it was meant to stop the government from having a government sanctioned religion.
Thus the government remains 'secular'.
No where does it say that a religion is restricted from having a view and have that view proposed to the government
The Establishment Clause.
How can other people have equal religious rights to you or anyone else, to believe or not to believe, if the state is legalizing or supporting one religion or sect as secular law? Can the government in the US mandate that you obey, Islam, Hindi, Buddhism, Satanism, or other regions or is it just your myths that must be listed as lew and not the myths of someone else? Unless the other people have the same right to force you to obey their dogma that you seek to do to them then they don't have equal rights. You do not want equal rights but instead, want religious privilege and thus you seek to create a theocracy. You are no different than the Taliban.
Again that describes what the government can not do. Do show where it in anyway limit what religion can do.
[removed] The state can not create any religious laws, which prohibit your church from creating religious laws that apply to people who are not members of your church. Other people cannot be forced to obey your church dogma if it isn't secular law.
Your church can believe anything that you want but others cannot be forced by the power of the government to obey it or pay for it. The power of those laws stops at the threshold of your church.
Just starting to? They are beyond stale and moldy now.
That’s true.
You are correct too. The no religious test means that government can’t refuse to consider a viewpoint because it’s held by religious people.
So if my church believes it wrong to steal or commit murder that government can’t legislate laws against doing those things?
It means the Father of the Constitution himself took issue with the idea. Regardless, I know there's no challenge to it and not likely to be challenged. But that doesn't mean religion can influence government or public policy. Individual members of government can be religious. But they cannot have religion itself make law or influence public policy, per the 1st amendment or the Lemon test.
Laws against those things are not unique or exclusive to religion. Such laws are based around individual liberties, not religion.
Religion is generally allowed to do anything as long as it doesn't violate secular law or the constitution.
So you believe secularism is over and above religion. Show me where in the law it says that.
That is not what he wrote. He noted that our laws are, by design, secular. See the 1st amendment.
Our laws are supposed to give favor to no religion and to (in principle) allow all religions (and the absence of religion).
Show me where religion is above secular law.
It is not. For example, if someone engages in an Islamic honor killing, they will be tried for murder in this country.
The closest we get is our tax laws giving special privileges to anything that technically qualifies as a church.
Madison is but one man and was not is the last word on anything
I never said it was.
I did not say that. Neither have I mentioned my beliefs.
I never understood the origins of that. I am guessing people figured at the time it would interfere with their freedoms somehow.
Interesting note:
That is exactly what he wrote just not in those exact words. He claimed that religion can not violate secular law therefore placing secular law above religion.
There have been plenty of times when secular law has interfered with religion. It violates it when the government requires religious institutions to provide insurance that covers abortion against that religions teachings. It violates then when it requires that religious groups to hire and/or retain hosexuals and other LGBTQ,s that also go against religious teachings
He is correct that religious law cannot violate secular law.
Like one cannot sacrifice a goat in the middle of a highway for Passover...
A religious organization cannot stone people, etc.
Interesting. Thanks.
Which stack up how against denying women their reproductive rights and LGTB equality?
Well murder is against secular law also and an abortion is murdering a baby. What rights are being taken away from LGBT? A gay man can marry any woman he chooses just like a straight man. No one is stopping a tranny from anything it is just that the taxpayer should not pay for it. If a man wants to put in makeup and a dress and pretend he is a woman that is his business just don't go around saying that he really is. Don't go around telling me a man is pregnant when in reality it is just a woman plat acting to be a man.
Why do I have to associate with those I do not wish to in violation of my rights.
So now you substitute ' secular law ' for ' secularism '. Make up your mind. What point are you trying to argue?
Religion is NOT above the law and the law is, by design, secular.
Secularism is: " The principle of separation of the state from religious institutions. " Comparing religion to secularism is nonsensical.
Sure, I mentioned one: honor killings. Supporting the point that religion does not supersede the laws of a society.
I recommend you toss out 'secularism' in your argument and stick with 'secular law'. Then we all agree.
Nominated for Most Moronic Comment of 2022.
No Jack, it is the facts of what is happening!
That's not strictly true. The state cannot make a law establishing a religion or prohibiting one.
However, in practice, all religions are based on adherence to a moral/ethical code of behavior, just like secular law. There will undoubtedly be times when the values of our secular society overlap the values of one or more religions within our society.
So our laws against murder, theft, rape, "bearing false witness", and a host of others are both religious and secular laws.
What is happening is your personal bout of raving hysteria.
Morality is irrelevant to religious belief. You do not have to be religious to be moral and religious people are not in any way inherently moral. Your argu8iment is a failure. The government is not enforcing morality because there are as many ideas of what is moral as who is or isn't god.
Murder theft and rape are all about the person's rights. The prohibition of telling the truth is not about morality but about truth in a criminal investigation and courtroom proceeding.
If religion was about morality then why are the prisons filled with religious believers? Less than 1% of prison inmates are atheists, despite the fact that atheists are 20% of the population.
Can you see pyramids from an Egyptian river?
Oklahoma has just made abortions illegal and Florida and Alabama passed ANTI-LGBT laws.
Your church cannot legislate its religious beliefs as secular law. You do not have to be religious to understand that rape, murder and theft are criminal.
It's actually quite important to religion, and has been for thousands of years. I'm not sure you can actually have a religion without a moral code.
I never said either of those things.
Only because you have it backwards.
What a bizarre suggestion. It is absolutely enforcing morality. But in a secular republic, like we have, that morality is determined through the legislative process.
Ignoring the blatantly obvious idea that those rights only matter because as a nation we have decided that it is morally correct to recognize them.
Which does not in any way refute the idea that it overlaps with church teaching.
Another bizarre idea. It's like asking how a math student gets a problem wrong. Because religious believers do not always adhere to the moral code of their religion, obviously. That does not mean the religion in question does not include a moral code.
I think religion tries to control their version of morality.
For me morality is simple. You either have it or you don't.
Very few people do.
Yet there are morals a society at large can almost all agree on.
Religion has nothing to do with it.
Everybody has some form of morality. It just doesn't always align with traditional ideals, or apparently your ideas. But they have their own.
Of course it does. Religious codes have been the primary codifications of human moral rules for thousands of years. The hangover impact alone is massive.
Think about it. How many "progressive" causes are simply modern liberals attempting to replace lingering religious moral codes with ones they favor?
You honestly think that without religion, people would have no morals?
Of course they would have. Think of all the previous, moral societies that were atheistic. Most predate religious societies.
I think you're missing arkpdx's point. Secularism, as an ideology, is being pushed over religion. The government is supposed to operate in a secular manner, not promote secularism.
And how were you harmed today?
I would think it had more to do with no taxation without representation. If you tax the church, why should it not then involve itself in politics freely? You might claim the church already does, but most don't. That is, we vote our values but there aren't that many political churches as a whole.
You think religious people have no representation?
Churches already involve themselves in politics.
Perhaps not, but you have to be religious to believe such things are immoral. To say that rape and murder are immoral, one necessarily has to say it is immoral for anyone and everyone, else "moral" loses any real meaning. If it is immoral, who says so?
Who says so? Me. Not your god, not you, me.
I need no God to tell me what is right.
I took his words as written and fed back the obvious meaning. He can now choose to be clear or not.
I do not see where he wrote anything that connotes as 'secularism as an ideology is being pushed over religion'. Note how he took Gordy's 'secular law' and immediately translated that into 'secularism'. I think that is where the disconnect occurred.
If he means 'secular ideology' then his comment does not follow from what Gordy wrote. Further, if he means 'secular ideology' then I would ask him to define what he means because that phrase suggests a desire to eradicate religion. I do not see where Gordy suggests that the government should do any such thing. Nor do I see Gordy suggesting that the government is even encouraging eradication of religion.
Of course. Since he was 'rebutting' Gordy, I do not see where Gordy suggested anything other than the government operating in a secular manner.
I totally disagree. I am not religious and I believe that rape, murder and theft are all immoral.
One can believe that rape, murder and theft are all immoral without having the authority to deem that this belief be true for everyone on the planet.
The only religion I know of where morality is irrelevant to belief is humanism. All others have morality as their foundation, so I can't imagine what you mean.
I would say that depends on what you think the definition of moral is.
True.
Eminently untrue.
Um, why would anyone care about a person's rights or telling the truth in court unless the morality of doing so was important? That is, if it's not about morality, why care about someone else's rights or telling the truth rather than do whatever one thinks will give them the most advantage?
Not for the reason you apparently think. Your question implies that inmates were Christians, practicing or otherwise, prior to prison. This isn't the case. Some factors that explain your unsupported statistic. First, prison is not a fun place. Turning to religion is a coping method in a very bad environment. Second, attending some sort of religious outreach helps with parole boards. Third, what constitutes a religious believer is a debatable issue. Apparently, Mexican drug cartels are rather religious. However, one could hardly claim that, even though they claim faith in Christian figures, they are hardly more than pagan ideas meant to justify what they do.
I'll take that as you're agreeing with what I said. That is, yes, the government is pushing secularism but how were you harmed by that fact?
Super. Now, why should anyone else care about what you think?
Why do you have to have a God to tell you what is right.
You cannot do it on your own?
I got a different obvious meaning but, as you say, he can choose to be more clear or not.
Perhaps, but perhaps arkpdx had the same reaction to Gordy I had, given the totality of Gordy's comments concerning religion over time. I don't think it would be realistic to discount that in understanding Gordy's meaning, whether intended or not. Personally, if Gordy could push a button and suddenly no one anywhere would be religious or even know of the concept, he'd probably break a finger in pushing it. Of course, he may hold a similar opinion of me on my end of the scale.
Interesting take. Ultimately, I suppose it could mean that, but I don't feel he was taking it that far. Of course, one can't really tell from such a short post, but if I have any sense of arkpdx, I'm not thinking he would take it that far.
I don't think arkpdx was saying that. I think he was suggesting that the government was doing it, in spite of whether or not it should, not that Gordy was saying it should.
Okay, but I don't think arkpdx was suggesting such. As I said, I think he was referring to what the government is doing, not to what Gordy thinks. IN other words, to my mind arkpdx was essentially saying, yeah, you can believe that but the government is actually pushing secularism.
Yes, kind of my point. It changes the meaning of morality from "what is right" to "what I think is right".
That is a really excellent question. I'll answer this two ways.
First, how many times have you done the wrong thing knowing it was wrong but did it anyway? How many times did you do the wrong thing but justified it because (some reason)? How many times do you fail to live up to your own moral standards? Can't you do it on your own?
Second, if we don't need God to tell us what is right, if we really can determine it on our own, explain human history.
Now you sound like an informercial.
" What is right " (absolutely) = objective morality
" What I think is right " (individual) = subjective morality
Morality = " Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. " And for further clarity note 1.1: " A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society . "
To wit, " what I think is right " is a form of morality.
Please deliver the clear moral code that God has provided.
Depends on which testament I guess.
God was cruel in the old.
I suppose that would be a matter of perspective.
First, love God above anything else. Included in loving God is obeying His commands. The second is to love others as yourself.
That is certainly how the books read.
Are there more than two rules? What are the commands that are to be obeyed (the 10 commandments?) (Leviticus & Deuteronomy?) ?
Indeed, not unlike the tax deductions we get personally, or even companies get, for charitable contributions. The issue isn't special treatment for certain religions (flying in the face of proper separation of church and state), it is recompense for providing a needed social service that might otherwise need to be provided by the Government, or otherwise might not be provided at all.
Not trying to get into a fight, but what you mean is, that is how the books read to you.
Yes, but as Jesus said, all of them are summed up in those two.
Understood and I am glad there is no intention to pick a fight. Yes. And I think that it is best to accept the words as written (of course recognizing reasonable context) and not abstract away the uncomfortable parts such as the condoning vs. condemnation of slavery.
So without those two rules (the first is still vague), you think that people are unable to recognize that killing, stealing, raping, owning (slavery), etc. are immoral acts? More than 2/3 of the planet are NOT Christian. Do you really think all those billions of non-Christians are unaware that being kind to others is good and being unkind is bad?
In addition, as you might suspect, it is only opinion (belief) that causes you et. al. to hold the Bible (or special parts thereof) as God's objective morality. I suspect you recognize that 'I believe this so it is true' is not a persuasive argument. Especially when (not going to go there at this point) the Bible is not exactly iron-clad in terms of being a credible source of truth.
I happen to be a Humanist and I do not need a book to tell me the difference between right and wrong because I can think logically. If you nee d a book and a weekly sermon to tell you the difference between right and wrong because you cannot determine it yourself then maybe we should not allow you to roam freely on the streets because others are not safe in your presence. You are instead a psychopath on a theistic leash. I wish that your omnipotent and omniscient god would do something about his followers who are moral and ethical failures.
The bible has no problem telling its follows to kill people on more than a few occasions. Do I need to remind you of Deuteronomy 17? The christian religion has been just as blood as Islam or any other theistic religion in the past and if it wasn't for the separation of church and state and the threat of life behind bars as retribution for their violent dominionist fantasies many of them would do the very same tomorrow if they were commanded to do so.
The more educated a society is the fewer people are members of a religion. Its also much more peaceful without religion.
That's the point. Religious morality is subjective. That's why throughout history when a religious person believes they are being directed by their faith or their God to 'cleanse' those they deem sinners or heretics, they can murder and kill other humans while still claiming they are "moral". And the real kicker is that these supposed people of faith were often being directed by their religious leaders, other humans that may be full of greed, hate, anger and avarice, not any God.
Morality is subjective, and humans are the subject. Most humans instinctively know that rape, murder and theft are all immoral. They know this because they are self aware and, even if they have never heard of the golden rule, they know they would not want to be raped, robbed or murdered and certainly wouldn't want that for any of their family and loved ones. It doesn't take a religion to tell people that behavior is immoral.
While religion claims itself the arbiter of morality, and most religions claim their foundations are built on morality and thus one can't really claim morality if irrelevant to religious belief, what I believe epistte meant was that religious belief is irrelevant to morality. One does not need religion to be moral. The fact is for a truly righteous and moral human, it often takes religious belief to corrupt them into being immoral, to be told to take up the sword and kill non-believers, to be given cover from some invisible being that has given them the "authority" to be immoral, to proclaim power over other humans in the name of some empty God.
Human history is chock full of religions, most of them doing both good things for their believers and the most horrible inhuman things to those who refuse to kneel to their many Gods. Should we really look to religious history for morality? Should we tell daughters that if their father hasn't had any sons to continue his male lineage they should get him drunk and sleep with him? Should we tell our friends and neighbors in our towns and cities that its okay to go burn down other neighboring cities of unbelievers and enslave them? Or should we tell them to arrest and execute any supposedly 'beguiling' women after accusing them of being witches?
So let's quit with the bullshit claims that religion is the foundation of morality. What I believe the faithful here are proclaiming is not that "religion" is the foundation of morality, but that "their religion" is the foundation of morality. I doubt there are any conservative Christians here willing to proclaim Islam as the foundation of morality, or any other faith for that matter. The amount of blood soaking the hands of just about every religion throughout history is enough to make one vomit, and it just gets even more nauseating when the blood soaked faithful try to proclaim themselves as the "moral standard" among humans.
I meant and intended every word I wrote above and double down stand by them in full as written even if I can’t express them.
So why is it that some secularists want to make many believers miserable?
If only we could compel him to back down.
In God we trust
one nation, under God, indivisible.
the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the Separation.
We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness
Because they are! There is a degree of separation of Church and state and they each have their realm. Bottom line though is that if any man made law from any government conflicts with Gods law, we are to obey His and not the state, even our own. We might be penalized civilly or worse, but God comes first, even if capital punishment is the consequence for obeying Him over the state. As long as government doesn’t pass laws in direct conflict with God we are to respect our leaders and pray for them.
It is the group think cancel culture of the other side that leads to such sweeping generalizations on their part
Read my post again and you will see
But there have been unsuccessful challenges thus the courts have said there’s no violation of separation there
That has to be so with separation of Church and state. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Government and the Church would not be equal if government could tax religion. It would be just as pernicious and evil for government to tax religion as it would be for it to collect taxes from the people to give to one directly.
I second the nomination!
Absolutely yes, without a doubt. The morals all without exception originally came from religion over time and across religions. If there was never religion there would never have been any morals whatsoever and humanity would long ago gone extinct as Darwin’s survival of the fittest and might makes right would have dominated without belief in God and religion.
The Love the Lord thy God covers all of the first 4 commandments and the love thy neighbor as thyself covers all of the last 6. They were on separate tablets written by the hand of God at Mt. Sinai.
Government and the church are NOT equal. The concept of separation of church and state is essentially anti-theocracy. It is a rejection of the Church of England and similar commingling of religion with government. It is NOT making government and church equal.
Utter bullshit. There is nothing evil about taxing churches. I can appreciate not taxing churches that genuinely provide a public service such as shelter and food for homeless, companionship for the elderly, day-care for children, etc. That was the original concept of not-taxing churches. But churches like those of Kenneth Copeland which are nothing more than an exploitation of the IRS definition for church should be taxed as the profit-centric enterprises they are (and, frankly, should be exposed and prosecuted as frauds).
You clearly do not understand the question asked.
Not really the way I think of it. That is, I don't think I can think of the subject without those two rules. Regardless of whether people recognize God or not, recognizing those sorts of things as immoral would not make sense without God. Consider. If existence is as some claim, without purpose or intent, then why would anyone consider those sorts of things immoral? Sure, someone could make the argument that it is contrary to civilization, but that assumes that the particular individual committing such offences gives a damned about civilization. The only realistic basis for opposing such individuals is that they are acting against the majority. I suppose one could equate morality with what the majority thinks about what is moral but that, demonstrably, doesn't work in the philosophical sense. Nazi morality, for instance, or, Putin's during this current time.
No. Not at all, and is part of why I believe what I do. As I have told you before, It seems "untenable" to believe morality is subjective when so much of morality is common to everyone, even though they may have different ideas about how to express it. Every single person on the planet believes morality is objective, even if they claim it is subjective. Evidence? Easy. The moment they claim someone else is acting immorally they are stating there is a morality that applies to everyone. It's not possible to hold that morality is subjective and then say someone else is acting immorally. They are mutually exclusive concepts.
Incorrect. I get that is your opinion, but still incorrect from my point of view. I believe the Bible because it explains the world in which I find myself. Also, it explains me.
You suspect correctly. That is, I don't believe that because I believe something is grounds for someone else to believe what I do simply on the basis of my believing it.
Not a statement I can agree with. I get where you're coming from but in my opinion, even if your view is the correct one, I'd still be left with the opinion that the writers of the Bible were geniuses and not simple goat herders as you have often claimed.
Gotta go help my brother but I wanted to take the time to ask the obvious. Concerning Christian morality, what makes you think it's the religion that subjective rather than the practitioners practicing it subjectively?
How are you made miserable? How does the private life of someone you don’t even know impact you? How are you made miserable by a gay couple who has no interaction with you?
How are you made miserable?
Have you been arrested for your faith? Beaten? Denied a job? Fired for it? Lost your residence? Are you told that God hates what you are or how you live? Have you been denied parental rights? Accused of being a sexual predator? A pedophile?
Somehow I doubt it. But all of these things and more happen to LGBT people every day.
Thank you. Well said. Incontrovertible.
I easily consider them immoral because they cause harm. I need not ponder our raison d'être to understand that it is wrong to walk up to another human being and kill them.
It does not surprise me at all that human beings have some rules of morality that most all of us share. After all, we are all biological homo sapiens and we have evolved myriad behaviors and priorities. That is, we are wired to certain behaviors. Consider, for example, the extremely common behavior of caring for babies.
What you should note, rather than commonality, is the wide variance in mores across the planet. If there is an objective morality that is built into all of us, it is a very tiny part of morality in general. Clearly this objective morality is woefully inadequate. In most cases, this common morality gives no guidance. Why, for example, is it immoral for human beings to enslave other human beings? The mores that exist on Earth are numerous but the common mores are very few. This suggests to me that that there is no objective morality in effect but rather that the various subjective moralities do intersect ... do share some mores. This is exactly what I would expect if morality were (or seems to be) exclusively subjective.
I do not see how that is different from you holding the Bible to be God's moral code based purely on belief. Of course if you hold the belief you naturally will find that it explains the world to you. I, in contrast, find the Bible to be errant and contradictory and thus it does not explain the world to me. The Bible reads like a collection of books developed by ancient men (with their limited knowledge of reality) over long periods of time (many time and distance separated authors).
I never have claimed that the authors of the Bible were mere goat herders. Nor do I speak of the Flying Spaghetti monster (by the way). It is important to not presume the words of some agnostic atheists are supported (much less used) by all. The authors of the books of the Bible were some of the most educated men of their time (reading and writing alone were rare skills, much less linguistic translation). The Bible itself is a substantially impressive book. I find that it is self-refuting, but that does not mean that I think the authors were stupid.
Because the Christian religion is not a single religion, not a single doctrine but rather a collection of variations that evolved over time. And that certainly makes sense if one recognizes religion (all religions) as a human invention.
Unable to recognize? No, that isn't the case. Of course people can recognize those things as immoral without employing either rule. I mean, it isn't the case that someone could not recognize that murder is wrong unless God told them it was wrong. We are made in God's image so of course we have the capacity to recognize immoral acts.
But murder is what I would describe as a big ticket item and even then, what constitutes murder isn't necessarily the same for everyone, as the Kyle Rittenhouse trial illustrates. Or look at slavery. Since the beginning of recorded history until only recently, slavery wasn't considered an immoral institution and freed slaves would think nothing of acquiring slaves of their own. Rape, too, wasn't as clear cut as we treat it today, historically. No one, except possibly the victim, would have thought a Greek, Syrian, Roman or some other soldier had done something wrong by raping the enemy's women. Although you can list items like murder, stealing, raping, slavery and other such things, it can't be said that man has always viewed the morality of such things in the same way or even what constituted those things in the first place.
Which brings me to the larger point about your question and it's difficult to put into just a few words. Those two rules aren't fundamentally about how to do what is right. It has to do with one's attitude and belief about the reality of existence and their place in it as a thinking, moral creature in light of God.
Looking at the first rule, love God above all else, isn't primarily talking about warm and fuzzy feelings directed at God. It is, more than feelings, the recognition that God is not only worthy of obedience but that justice demands we do so. It is just because He not only created us but sustains us. More, that doing so truly is what is best for us personally.
The second reflects God's attitude toward us. That is, He puts us before Himself. This is evidenced by the fact we still exist in spite of our imperfections and that He gave His one and only Son for our sake. Therefor, since we were created in His image, we should do the same.
It should be noted that the victim in both of these laws is human self centeredness. That sin which is responsible for so much death and suffering in human history.
Disagree. I don't hold it as "only opinion".
Yes, I recognize that. At the same time, while it may not be persuasive, it doesn't mean what is believed is untrue.
I agree. That is, there's no point going there.
I would argue that Christianity is a single religion with differing doctrines.
True, but it is equally true that it also makes sense if it isn't the result of being a human invention but, rather, imperfections in humans in trying to follow the religion.
What then lets people know that killing, rape, slavery, etc. are all morally wrong? I say this comes from subjective morality (morality that has evolved over times and differently with different societies). You say, I assume, this comes from God (objective morality) yet I still do not see where God has made this clear. Indeed, the Bible certainly does not provide clear direction on these big ticket items.
If objective morality to you is all about human relationships with God then that is a reasonably well-defined construct. But that does not address the balance of moral questions and that absence, as you can tell, is the drive of my comments to you.
That language is fine. The point is that Christianity is certainly NOT a single 'thing' and as a whole (considering the variations) is contradictory.
Religions are typically based on holy books like the Bible. In the case of Christianity, the truth of Christianity is held to be within the Bible. The imperfections of the Bible thus are imperfections of Christianity.
More accurately, humans follow religion subjectively. But this is also true of non-religious systems, so you're not really making any sort of point here.
True, but believing they are being directed by their faith or god doesn't mean that they are. Further, this is, again, true of non-religious systems as well. Ask Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and the rest.
Same thing again. So far, the common denominator isn't religion, but man. What do you suppose that says?
I, of course, disagree. I think there's irrefutable evidence that humans treat it subjectively, which doesn't de facto make morality subjective.
Yes, but only in general terms. As concepts, in other words. This is evidenced by the fact that what constitutes those things differs among individuals. In other words, those things are treated subjectively as well.
Disagree. I think you're limiting religion to simply being a structure consisting of dogma and rules but that isn't what religions are, fundamentally. They are actually a collection of "truths" groups hold about the nature of reality. The only difference between you and them is that they claim a deity or deities for it all. In every other sense, what you believe to be true about reality is your religion.
That would be incorrect in my opinion. This is because morality must come from somewhere, even if it is yourself. What epistte literally meant was that she can recognize morality apart from religion, but is that true? And even if she can, would it actually be moral? How would she know it's moral? Her feelings? The Nazis had their own morality as well, you know. So did Stalin, presumably. Possibly his morality was that there was no morality. Kind of the point, though. Concerning man, history shows we have a pretty bad track record for knowing, and then doing, what is moral.
The fact is? Can you provide an example of someone you thought was a "truly righteous and moral human" who was corrupted? Probably should begin by defining what a truly righteous and moral human would be, though.
Totally on board with that! So, how about you put the blame where it belongs? Human beings. Most of the blood on our hands can be laid at the feet of our nature. It isn't because of religion. It's because of who we are. This is easily proven by simply looking at history. For truth's sake, just look at communism! They probably killed more people in less than a century than all the religious wars in history combined. Definitely more than Christianity, by far. Again, no matter the system, the common denominator is always us. Man. So, please, spare me the "religion is a plague" speech. Anyone who honestly looks at history knows it doesn't hold up.
Oh good grief.
Read it again.
I think in order to recognize 'reasonable context', one must be careful about applying 21st century moral standards to 3000-year-old texts.
I should have said Good Grief...
The problem is that a 3000 year old text is held as the perfect source of divine moral standards.
I recommend that it NOT be held as such but that it be taken as a reflection of ancient, human-derived moral standards. Thus when the Bible condones slavery and never condemns the act of owning another human being as property (no: "thou shalt not own another as property"), we should indeed interpret this as ancient men speaking as men of their times ... men who saw slavery as absolutely normal and just.
In short, the Bible should not be taken as the written representation of objective morality (that which would be determined by God).
Further, there is no modern version of the Bible sourced from God to turn to. As such we have only contextual interpretation of ancient words. This interpretation is by human minds based on their evolved sense of morality (extra biblical), framing the Bible as they would prefer. In the example I used, slavery, the typical contextual interpretation largely sweeps the absence of condemnation under the rug and defers to the larger context of love. The argument is that it only appears that God condones slavery but really that is just God not interfering with the economic system of ancient men. Human beings can demonstrably interpret the Bible to almost any desired meaning.
I mean religious morality itself is subjective.
Subjective: adjective - based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Morality is subjectively based on humans personal feelings, tastes and opinions. What is beneficial to humans is almost always seen as moral while things that hurt humans are seen as immoral. Is it moral to kill and eat other life forms? Yes, according to most killing and eating animals is not immoral, but killing and eating a human is abominable. Clearly morality is shaped by and for humans, not any other life form in the universe.
I agree, and that's my point. Since there is no way to know whether someone is being directed by God or not, then how can you trust any religious leaders? The same is true for those pushing any ideology whether religiously based or not. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot's ideology was not simply based in a removal of religion, it was about control of society and who got to control it which isn't much different than the many religions who have claimed dominance over man.
Exactly. "Religion" is no different than any other human invented ideology like socialism, fascism or communism. Since no religion can prove in any way that they are the "true religion", all religious ideology is suspect.
That's a nice opinion, but until anyone can prove their God real and thus their morality non-human based, we all just have to take a humans word for it, aka "subjective".
"Truths" in quotes aka "alternative facts". Until you can prove your God is real, you cannot prove your morality is based on anything other than the human experience.
That is the very nature of subjective morality. What hurts me or hurts my family and friends is immoral. That which hurts other life forms on the planet is purely debatable. Lot's of people think hurting and killing animals is immoral, other think of it as a moral right of humans given to them by their God in Genesis, other believe only certain animals like cows should be considered sacred.
You're questioning the ability of another human to sense morality apart from religion when you can't even prove your God, the supposed source of your morality, exists. I can ask the same questions, is it true? Is it actually moral? How do we know it's moral? If a religion says that it's moral to rape kids, do you really believe all of that religions members will just accept that as moral? Don't you think that would create a massive "crisis of faith" because the religious morality they express is contrary to subjective human morality? If so, then it's the human morality that is already established without any need for religion, and in fact the religious morality is just decorated and gussied up human morality and if it strays to far from that subjective human morality humans condemn it and revolt against it.
The Nazi's were all Church going God fearing Christians with "Gott Mit Uns" or "God is with us" on their belts and hats. But that was just a cover for their ideology of superiority which allowed them to do the most horrible things to humans they had been taught weren't really "human". With Stalin, he demonized other groups like capitalists. But everyone of them would have claimed it would be immoral to rape and murder humans if the humans in question were they or their children.
And yet religion has been around as long as human recorded history. Now, without evidence, some seem to want to claim that their religion is the source of "true" mortality despite the very long record of religious immorality and no way to prove any faith is the correct one.
Can you not think of any religious wars fought to kill those of other faiths? Tens of millions have died throughout history in wars fought with faith as a primary tool to motivate their armies. Sure, the leaders objectives were clearly terrestrial in nature, they wanted resources for "their" people and thought nothing of burning and pillaging others to get it. The religious differences just made it much easier for their followers to kill not only soldiers but women and children too or at best taking them as slaves in perpetuity as the bible allowed for the ancient Israelites.
Those who believe in the Abrahamic God believe that when their God promised them the fertile land of Israel, it was "moral" to go wipe out all the current inhabitants. Without belief in that specific God wasn't what they did incredibly inhumane? Their "God" supposedly promised them the "land of the Canaanites, Hittites, Amorites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites—a land flowing with milk and honey.’" so the Israelites took in their armies and wiped out each town and city. From a human perspective that was very immoral, but from a believers perspective they were given the "authority" to be immoral.
I do. I believe humans created religion to justify violating human morality. And since none can prove their God is true, I can but assume all are false because all have a share of blood on their hands.
That reminds me of a scene from "The Magic Christian" with Peter Sellers and Ringo Star. Peter Sellers plays an embarrassingly rich man who takes in Ringo Star as his adopted son. In one scene Peter Sellers asks a woman at the bar if she'd sleep with his virgin ill son for a million dollars. When she happily agrees he asks "Well what about for $20 pounds?" to which she replies in a huff "What? What do you think I am, a whore?" and Peter Sellers replies "We've already established what you are madam, now we're just haggling over the price".
My point is that just because in the last century some 60 million were killed by socialists and communists, that doesn't mean the roughly 11 million killed in religious wars throughout history was somehow "moral". They're both still 'whores' as it were. They were both immoral and both reprehensible which proves my point, religion is no different than any other man made ideology.
Where in my comments do I make that claim? All I said was that morality is subjective and humans can be just as moral without religion as they can with it, and, conversely, can be just as immoral with or without religion. You're clearly trying to defend your brand of faith, yet you're incapable of proving it true which is what would be required to prove your brand is truly "objective morality". Until then it will continue to be subjective, pure and simple. When you can prove some other source exists other than humans then you can claim objective morality. Don't worry, I won't hold my breath.
I'd definitely agree with that being problematic, pointing out that the view represents a very, very small minority of Christians.
The standard practice is somewhere between the two, where the texts in question are considered "divinely inspired".
Yes, and not only with that topic. But if we use slavery as a (perfectly good) example, it's significant to remember that the concept of slavery in the Middle East in 500 BC was a materially different and much broader situation than the slavery we usually think of in the 19th century United States. So the lack of condemnation is, as you suggest, far more nuanced than it would appear at first glance.
The larger problem overall IMHO is that truly understanding not only the texts in question but their comparative relevance to modern times requires far more intellectual horsepower than most people are willing to invest....assuming they even possess it in the first place. So we end up with decisions of rejection or devotion being made brainlessly.
OK, let's actually examine the idea, which I frankly cannot believe is not overwhelmingly obvious.
What progressive causes can you think of where the primary objection is based on lingering religious rules?
That didn't take long, did it?
In every one of those cases, the objection to "progress" is rooted in previous or current religious rules.
So how in the world is that 'progressive' people trying to replace religious moral code?
Sounds more to me like conservative people just being their regressive selves.
Like I said earlier, religion pushing their own morals on everyone else.
I'm seriously starting to wonder who you are and does Ender know you've stolen his laptop.
Every one of those items reflects a situation where the secular statute is or recently was based on rules that Christians (specifically) have held for a very long time.
Like I have been saying for several posts, those religions had already pushed those morals onto everyone else. The current progressive struggle is the attempt to undo that.
I seriously don't understand how that's not obvious.
No, it is giving people freedoms, something religious people think only applies to them.
Drinking isn't moral to some religious people yet I see you didn't use that as an example.
If a religious person objects to abortion, simple, don't get one.
Instead what the religious sect does is say I am against abortion, so should all be.
And you still didn't actually answer my question.
Do you think there would be no morals without religion?
While I am not particularly religious, both myself and religious people agree that abortion is murder, I feel I must do what ever it takes to preserve that human life and defend it at all costs.
So it is your moral imperative that everyone should follow your rules.
Given Drakk is part of this tiny minority and my discussion has been with Drakk, it seems like a valid point. If objective morality exists, Drakk holds that it can be found in the Bible. He holds that the Holy Spirit must help human beings to truly identify this objective morality but that it is there. Personally, I find that to be entirely unpersuasive. If objective morality exists and is relevant then it would need to be knowable and certain ... and one would expect that ALL would know this (at least the super majority). My argument has been that objective morality might exist, but in effect it does not. The morality in effect — the only morality we ever see — is subjective morality. There might be elements of objective morality overlapping our myriad subjective moralities but we have no means to distinguish objective mores.
Indeed. That enables the necessary creative interpretation.
The differences do not change the fact that this is the owning, as property, of a human being (the language that I intentionally used).
I think the problem is an attempt to infer divine guidance from the words of ancient men. Even if these men were essentially channeling divine proclamations, there is no method to accurately identify the parts that are truly divine from words of mere human beings.
Freedoms denied by what and whom? C'mon. This penny is going to drop eventually, I can feel it.
It's probably the best example. I didn't use it because it's been 100 years and I was shooting for more modern topics.
But drinking and the prohibition of it is a fantastic object lesson, not only on the core influence of religious doctrine on secular laws, but also how women have used religion for centuries as a primary mechanism for exerting their control over societies.
Failing to understand the issue entirely... and completely missing the point of this discussion.
I never even suggested such a thing. That was you.
What I said was:
Throughout most of human history, any civilization's prevailing code of secular laws is almost always closely intertwined with the codes of conduct detailed in the most prevalent religion in that time and location.
You still didn't answer my question.
Would you stop someone from performing an honor killing or would you just stand by and let it happen?
Would you stop someone from performing an honor killing or would you just stand by and let it happen?
Not getting into that debate.
I will just say, you think they are the same where I do not.
And why are they different? Both involve the killing of a human being.
If you believe Drak is part of this group, I suspect we're talking about different tiny minorities.
The person who normally posts as Ender would understand that I have.
"Never suggested such a thing" would have tipped him off.
[ Drakk's membership was simply an aside FYI. He will likely come back and make some argument as to why he is not a member. So let's ignore that side note entirely. The focus is on the notion of objective morality. ]
Drakk holds that objective morality is the ONLY true morality and that subjective moralities are not truly moralities.
As noted, my argument has been that objective morality might exist, but in effect it does not. The morality in effect — the only morality we ever knowingly observe — is subjective morality. There might be objective mores overlapping the mores of our myriad subjective moralities but we have no means to distinguish objective mores.
To wit, the only moralities we observe are those which emerge from societies / cultures (and individuals). If objective mores sometimes align with subjective mores, we have no way of knowing when this happens. And we cannot turn to sources like the Bible to clarify which are truly objective mores (vs those that are merely subjective) because of 'interpretation'.
I am not trying to be mean but still, that is a non answer.
I worry this oversimplifies the idea, and probably his views, but he's certainly capable of expressing himself, so I'll leave that to him.
I would say most Christians agree that there is indeed a "true" morality that is objective. Christians and Muslims obviously believe this is defined by God. Many would probably point to the nearly universal worldwide acceptance of some of these ideas as supporting evidence, asserting that God has been at work in people's hearts even if they didn't understand it was happening at the time.
However most Christians will readily admit that we don't understand the entirety of this "true morality", and that we also regularly fail to execute on the parts we do understand. So what could easily be seen as subjective morality may in fact be varying forms of misunderstanding and misapplication of God's objective morality.
That would be different and in addition to the subjective moral codes that vary from culture to culture and religion to religion or even one Christian tradition to another.
I think it depends on a number of definitions. If we only allow morality to be considered "objective" if it is the entirety of moral code, then no, it probably doesn't. However if we define it along the lines of those core moral principles that lie in the intersection of most human societies, I think the discussion is different.
For an extreme example... I don't know of any society anywhere in the world where it is considered acceptable to rape a 5-year-old. I don't know of anywhere it's considered acceptable to exterminate people once they reach a certain age (remember Logan's Run?) I can't think of any society where adultery is considered morally upright. So it's not difficult to set behaviors like those in the "objective morality" subset.
However whether or not a person who divorces and remarries is committing adultery or whether or not gin consumption is amoral or halal vs haram are widely disputed and therefore much easier to define as subjective.
As a non-believer, I would not expect you to turn to the Bible for anything. Your moral code will be whatever your belief system drives you to adopt. That's certainly your decision, but it doesn't mean Drak's is any less valid.
I read your entire post. Basically I agree and was not contesting anything you mentioned. So I will respond to your entire post as a whole.
My key question has been: how does anyone distinguish, with confidence, objective mores from subjective mores? A simple answer is something like: "the 10 commandment ≡ objective morality". That has the immediate problem of objective morality allowing the owning of another human being as property (among a great many other things). A more complex answer might be: "the laws/rules attributed in the Bible as coming from God ≡ objective morality". I doubt much of the Mosaic law such as that in Deuteronomy and Leviticus will ring true as objective morality. Other answers that describe objective morality in vague terms are also not helpful.
I agree. Drakk and I have never compared our individual moral codes. The debate, as I noted, is on Drakk's view that the only true morality is objective morality and my counter that subjective morality (that derived from societies ... individuals) is also true morality (for those scopes) and that we have no way of knowing which mores are objective and which are subjective. Note the fact that human beings do have certain mores in common (e.g. your example of raping a child) does not mean that those common mores are ipso facto objective mores. They might simply be 'common' ... that which has evolved in virtually every society as a consequence of our common nature.
In short, I see subjective morality as that which continues to evolve at a societal down to individual level. I submit that we cannot distinguish objective morality (if it exists) from the various subjective moralities. That is, we have no way to point to a mōs (mores in singular) and state "now this is know to be an objective mōs". We can point to extreme examples such as child rape and through incredulity argue that must be an objective mōs, but that is not a sound argument.
Thus, there might be an objective morality but nobody really knows that it is so when it comes to morality, the best we have is subjective moralities. Pick a society / culture and we can discuss what they hold as moral truths. That is the best we can do.
Some people can have that opinion, just like some people could claim a pan full of batter is a cake. Others clearly disagree. So while we all agree that killing a human being is wrong and immoral and we wouldn't let someone for religious reasons perform honor killings, the debate is that a zygote, embryo, fetus etc. are not a human being until they are able to survive outside of the womb on their own. Until that point they are closer to a parasite than a human being. So while we have some nuts who think fur and steak is murder, and others who think the use of any contraceptive to be an offense to their God, according to the law of the land, abortion is not the killing of a human being nor murder.
Morality: noun - a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.
So, as a society here in America, we have decided that abortion should be legal and accessible.
" a majority of Americans (61%) continue to say that abortion should be legal in all (27%) or most (34%) cases."
Because morality is clearly subjective, only die hard religious zealots would argue otherwise, that subjectivity is based on the community or society that the people live within. We deem it moral to kill cows here and eat them whereas in India they are sacred and it would be immoral to kill and eat a cow.
So until anyone can prove their God actually exists, it's up to society to determine what is 'moral' or not. In the past we accepted slavery as 'moral', but on further reflection and a lot of suffering and empathy we decided it was not moral and passed secular laws banning it. Abortion was once illegal and considered immoral by society, upon further reflection and a lot of suffering and empathy we decided it was not immoral and passed secular laws legalizing it.
*sigh* Dude, it's a really stupid question and I've been trying to give you a chance to leave it and get involved in the intelligent side of this discussion. Alas.
Yes, obviously. Several civilizations throughout history that have evolved moral codes without a strong religious presence. As I have already said...repeatedly...religious rules are the oldest and most common form of codification of those morals. For thousands of years, they have provided a means by which morals could be enforced on the unwilling elements of a society.
I think that's a pivotal question.
It's reasonably easy to understand how you each come to your conclusions, given your differing starting beliefs.
How are each of you defining "true" morality?
Drakk defines 'true' morality as that which is determined by God.
I do not need the 'true' adjective. To me, subjective moralities are 'true' only with respect to their contextual society / culture / individual. In other words, a subjective morality is —by definition— true per its context. The 'true' adjective is thus superfluous.
Drakk does not consider a subjective morality to be 'morality'; it is to Drakk morality in name only. The only morality per Drakk is that which is determined by God.
I hold that subjective morality is a type of morality. Objective morality is also a type of morality (albeit a singleton). I accept the possibility of a singular objective morality and agree that it would be that which is determined by God. And if objective morality exists it would thus be superior to all subjective moralities.
It is good to know that you think a human life at the beginning of it's life and development is just a parasite.
To quite Ronald Reagan (a truly great man and president)
There isn't one answer in that paragraph.
You seem to be implying that there was a time when the world was without God to tell us what is right.
Yet, based on the Bible, God has been telling us what was right for ALL of human history.
So, shouldn't God be the one doing the explaining?
Ronald Reagan was an adulterer. It's there a prohibition on adultery in your dogma?
I have a dogma? Who knew. Do you know what it is? I'd like to know
No man is 100% perfect. He was afterall only a man.
Dies that somehow negate his statement that I quoted?
Perhaps you should read your own comments in this thread for a clue.
You said he was 'a truly great man'. Low standards for 'truly great'?
Just pointing out the kind of man you hold in high regard because of his one liners.
My standards are still much higher than the majority of liberals.
“My standards are still much higher than the majority of liberals.”
When ‘standards’ are measured in such a limited context, they become less a standard and more a maxim, rendering them relatively meaningless in their obvious partisanship.
Considering your low opinion of liberals, you're not setting your sights very high.
Well there is that $6.5 million mansion the bought with funds donated for other purposes
Churches and nonprofits own, by far, the largest real estate portfolios in the world starting with the Roman Catholics and Scientology. Baptists would be #1 but each church is independent...
I thought that the Church of Latter-day Saints had the largest holdings.
I read the other day that it is now these independent mega churches bringing in all the bucks.
Of course they are their own entities and not part of a conglomerate.
So ?
The evangelical pastors own their churches...
They don't pay taxes but the own the assets.
So? Because BLM is a nonprofit organization entitled to raise, invest and spend its funds...
But he needs that private jet, to be closer to God...
Mormons own a lot of property but nothing like what The Roman Catholic Church does. United Methodists and Anglicans invest a lot more in financial institutions, bonds and stocks...
Do you have any figures?
The figures are hard to get. You look into it...
I saw where Mormons are claiming to own the most real estate for any church in the US, but that is doubtful. Roman Catholic property in NYC alone has an estimated value of over nine billion dollars.
Then why are you so sure?
Catholic girls
With a tiny little moustache.
Catholic Girls
Do you know how they go...
Nobody knows exactly because there is no transparency, but there are people who are expert in these kinds of things. One thing can be confirmed is who owns what properties and nobody is close worldwide to Catholics.
No, the Catholic girls that I’ve known were all different.
Where are they now, at the OK corral.
That depends very much on the church in question.
What social point was Frank trying to make?
Probably that Catholics were supposed to be sexually regressive. Yet behind the scenes...
Oh my, Frank didn’t buy into the bigotry and stereotypes, good for him.
How dare churches own their own church buildings, schools, hospitals, social services buildings, etc!
The same goes for BLM which is a nonprofit!
Except BLM does not own church buildings, schools, hospitals or social service buildings. It does own a six and a half million dollar mansion that it "leaders" bought for themselves.
Please provide a link from a reliable source to support that claim?
If I may, the mansion was purchased BLM Global Network Foundation, which is separate from the BLM movement in general. But the information is correct, and even some in the movement are upset by the purchase, and its actual use in supporting BLM causes is suspect.
See NPR interview/article HERE
More HERE at New York Magazines Intelligencer .
I know, hence my request.
Although a separate entity (as it has to be) it is the non-profit charity collection arm of the overall organization as JBB points out above in 3.3.21, and to which arkpdx responded. It is the only entity directly part of and in control of the fiscal support of the movement that those who claim BLM is a "non-profit" can be referring to. It is controlled by a board and specific leadership from the BLM movement. And as you can see from my links, even internally various BLM activists and chapters are upset with how the leadership is using the money and specifically questioning the purchase of high end real estate like this. So arkpdx's claim that, "It does own a six and a half million dollar mansion that it "leaders" bought for themselves" is supported by the NPR interview and the Intelligencer article in response to your request for links from a reliable source. Agreed?
Let me help you, then.
What do you suppose would happen if faith organizations tried to get abstinence only taught in sex ed classes? Rhetorical question because we already know. The left screamed bloody murder, claiming religious indoctrination. Now, we don't see it being taught anywhere that I've heard of. But, apparently, the left thinks nothing of indoctrinating school children into their own religion. School children are being sexualized at every grade level, to include K. All of it affirming of LGTBQ morality and views.
Just look at epistte's comment before yours. A better example of the left's attitude couldn't be penned. "There is no room for Christians or their beliefs in the America we plan to create." is the message. No view but ours and we're going to make sure we get as many of your kids as we possibly can.
So, let me ask you. If Christians were doing what the LGBTQ community, the supporters of systematic racism and CRT theory or any other postmodernist organization were doing, wouldn't you say they were trying to create a theocracy? Damn straight you would. Do you think that because the left doesn't include an official god that what they are doing is any less than creating a humanist theocracy? Right now, children in the public school system are being indoctrinated into the beliefs of only one part of our society. Something that simply should not happen for the same reason teaching Christianity in public schools should not be done.
Because if you believe otherwise, why shouldn't Christians do the same things the post-modernist left is doing?
Bullshit.
Not teaching about contraceptives and how to protect oneself from venereal diseases or unwanted pregnancies and "only" telling them to keep it in their pants because some religions believe pre-marital sex is a sin is not only monumentally stupid, it's also injecting religious belief into public schools. Are any of the kids being forced to have sex just because they learned about condoms? Of course not, every Christian kid in the school can be as abstinent as they like and practice their faith till they're old and grey without ever having sex if they want. But by using religious doctrine to deny other kids the valuable knowledge about ways to protect themselves if they do choose to be sexually active is truly immoral.
Bullshit. Unless you're claiming that kids are being "sexualized" by explaining that there's nothing wrong with kids with two mommies or two daddies and they're no different than having a mother and a father. If that is "sexualizing" children then heterosexual believers have been doing it for centuries by presenting boy/girl relationships as 'normal'. Do any Kindergarten classes tell their kids about the intimacy between their parents? Do they describe to the kids how their mommy and daddy have sex? Of course not. So normalizing gay relationships is no different than normalizing straight relationships to a child. What some religious folk are so pissed off about is that they've been busy teaching their children to hate and despise gay persons, to fear them, to treat them like dirt and they see the public schools undermining their indoctrination.
What? Standing up for their beliefs and loved ones and have their relationships thought of as "normal"? You don't think Christians have been doing that for centuries?
So let me ask you, if the lgtbq community were doing everything Christians are doing, injecting their own holiday projects in art class, putting on gay holiday plays, preaching that Christians are evil sinners that shouldn't be allowed to use the same restrooms as the rest of us, trying to ban straight marriage and criminalize straight relationships, forcing us all to listen to gay jingle music in almost every commercial and shopping mall for months each year, how would you feel about it? Seems to me someone is looking for the speck in their brothers eye while ignoring the rafter in their own.
Perhaps if Christians actually tried to practice their faith instead of being so caught up in beating everyone else over the head with it we'd all live in a more peaceful world.
“Jesus is ideal and wonderful, but you Christians, you are not like him.” - Indian philosopher Bara Dada
No, it’s absolutely true. We are trying to stop it with the parental rights movement but right now LGBT and BLM/CRT morality and views are crammed down our kids throats
First, why would you need to? If you want to teach abstinence, you are free to do it at home or in church. No one will stop you.
Second, teaching lifestyle choices like abstinence is not what sex ed is for. It’s for education about how sex works - not whether or not you should engage in it. There is no need teach abstinence because no one is being taught to do the opposite.
Now, look: a teacher can say that a way to avoid disease is to not have sex. I don’t think that’s particularly controversial, and I think it is being said in most sex ed classrooms. I think there is also an argument to be made that there is some psychological benefit to fewer sex partners. There is actual research on that. But beyond those things, I don’t know what there is to “teach” about abstinence.
I’m pretty confident that in almost all schools, there is little or no talk of sex with kindergartners. I think our larger society does more to sexualize kids than schools do.
I’m not sure what you mean by “LGBTQ morality and views” but if schools are teaching kids that they should respect and affirm all people regardless of their differences, then I think that is valuable.
No, because they aren’t teaching that religious faith is something to be avoided. The task they have been given is to educate children in certain academic topics, not to opine on what is right or wrong according to a specific religious belief. A big reason for that is the fact that all religions are tolerated in this country, and we don’t want the government to be in the position of favoring one over the others.
It’s probably impossible to completely avoid the problem of teachers expressing their personal points of view on something, even if only accidentally. That’s why it will always be important for parents to communicate with their kids and discuss the things they hear in school.
What would help would be a relevant reply to the content of Tacos post. Your reply fails.
That can ONLY be true because of willful ignorance. 3 seconds of your time could educate you to the FACT that 19 states continue to codify your agenda. 3 more seconds could prove to your that teen pregnancies are still HIGH in all too many of those 'bible belt' states.
AGAIN, please post an example of this 'LGBTQ morality' that you insist exists Drakk. You bailed went I asked you to tell me all about it. If you're going to keep making that claim, isn't it time that you address what your MEAN?
First of all, using quotation marks on YOUR interpretation of a member's comments is bad form Drakk.
Secondly, your interpretation is obtuse.
WHAT is the LGBTQ community doing Drakk? Post specific examples.
In fact, please post examples of what all of your examples are doing.
BTFW, the 'supporters of systematic racism' can hardly claim to be 'postmoderists', at least in their origin.
Yes, because humanism and theocracy are diametrically opposed.
BTW, please post a definition of postmodernist so I know WTF you're referring to.
Evidence? Links?
It may behoove you to review that fact that each state and territory has their own DOE and, in many cases, curriculum differs from county to county and school district to school district. There are about 14,000 school districts and thousands of people all over the country, most elected locally, from every part of society, who have a hand in choosing the standards for their local public schools.
Your claim stretches credulity.
Once you prove it's happening, we can see about equate it. Alas...
The 1st Amendment of the Constitution.
Fuck off.
I have a language filter on so I don’t know what you wanted me to do but I bet if I said that to you the flag would not have been disallowed and grey.
So you flagged my comment without knowing what it says?
Oh and since you don't know what my comment says, why assume I want you to DO anything?
Your comment is ridiculous.
I did not. It was already disallowed when I came upon it.
It would be nice if Penny Nance put aside some makeup for the other gals.
Penny Nance leads a great Christian organization that has an optimistic message for those of us unwilling to yield on our literal Biblical beliefs.? That she leads in the protection of original history, traditional and cultural values and the protecting of our children from the woke cancel culture makes her a great American! I’m glad that Christian Post published her awesome article.
The higher availability of information diluting religious indoctrination?
I think it’s the need to be mean to people that is discouraging participation. Church - especially Christian church - has become famous now as a place where they judge and shame others. I’m not surprised when people decide they want no part of that.
I think it’s the need to be mean to people that is discouraging participation.
Is Christianity growing world wide? Is the world meaner now than 50 years ago?
I don’t think that matters to what I said
Exactly! Christians are giving Jesus a bad rep...
Oh my, will He survive?
Of course Tacos matters. We all matter.
Tucker Carlson had a great segment on the trans cult. About a girl who went back before it was too late and as a young woman is grateful there was intervention for her.
All lives matter to God.
Yes, I said the same.
We are saved by grace. But once that happens, it does not mean people continue living in sin as before. It was said, “Go and sin no more lest something even worse befall you”. Paul said that homosexuals who were forgiven and walked away from the lifestyle would be among the saved. He also said that those continuing in it like those continuing in any other sin most assuredly will not be in the kingdom.
He Lives!
That’s wonderful.
It was and the people who intervened on her behalf didn’t do it because they were being mean to her.
It is the woke cancel culture of the secular progressive urban elites that is indoctrinating our children and turning them against their parents. The culture war is now engaged and we will not stop fighting that which was imposed upon us until we turn back the secular tide
Seems to me that you have no clue. You seem to offer the same reason with the same buzzwords for every problem.
If only he could squeeze that onto a bumper sticker.
The truth is the truth regardless of how you try to characterize or minimize it.
Your fantasy reality is not truth.
It will be a great day in America when the christian religion is taught as an equal to Ra, Zeus, Anu, Thor and Jupiter, among other ancient myths.
I will settle for simply not having it (and other religions) block basic critical thinking.
What about those who believe in Allah (where Jesus is simply a mortal prophet)? Or those who believe in Jehovah where Jesus does not even exist? Or those who believe in Brahman and the other gods of Hindu?
In the world's religions, Christianity is about 32% . Is 68% of the world doomed right off the bat?
The frauds couldn’t stand the test of time. The one true and only real one will even stand the ultimate arrogance of 21st century secular man kind who think they know better and that they have no need for such a Supreme Being.
The god 'Jehovah' was in reference to Judaism (from YHWH); just as Allah was in reference to Islam. Another popular name is Elohim but it is not so easily recognized by the general population. JW's are part of Christianity.
Yeah, well give it some thought. Even of that 32% not all are going to qualify. So, per your beliefs, more than 2/3 of the planet is going to live with Satan. That sound about right to you? Does it give even a hint of pause; that maybe you actually do not have all the answers and might be over-relying on mere faith based on beliefs taught to you by mere human beings who represent a clear minority of the world's religions?
What if Judaism is right?
Sure, people moved on to better gods. Those old gods are has-beens.
People do not teach others about these ancient gods because they are no longer part of active religions. One learns about these ancient gods indirectly when studying the culture (and beliefs) of ancient people.
So, real simple, there is a profound difference between the active teaching of gods in current religions and the teaching of gods that are no longer believed to exist.
You asked if anything was stopping teaching and I answered that people are interested in the newer gods and that those old gods are has-beens.
So, again, you see less teaching about them because they are no longer part of active religions. Another way of saying this is because these gods are no longer believed to exist, religious teaching of these gods has stopped (essentially).
It will be a horrific judgement day for those that believe Ra, Zeus, Anu and Jupitar are equal to Christ.
God is love.
You keep asking questions on an obvious answer. That suggests you do not understand which then leads to more detailed explanations.
Then maybe hold back on presuming all those who are not Christians will have a horrific judgement day.
Just drop it Texan.
He is. He gave the world 120 years to change its evil ways while the Ark was being built. Instead they doubled down on their evil ways. Sodom and Gomorrah got a reprieve as well when Abraham liberated them from an invader and despite being rescued by a man of God, their evil ways upon their rescue deepened as well. The people of Canaan had over 400 years to change their ways from the time Jacob went to Egypt and his descendants returned. The whole world has had about 2000 years for people to make their decisions since this weekend that long ago.
[Deleted]
[removed (funny but an insult)]
Happily for mankind, the long, dark era of domination by theocrats is slowly coming to an end. There will be setbacks along the way as the theocrats continue to attempt to force their ideologies on society, much like their autocratic brothers-in-arms have made some recent gains against democracies. And people will always have the right to associate with religions if they so choose, but the harsh supremacy of theocracy will become a relic of history.
A comprehensive demographic study of more than 230 countries and territories conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life estimates that there are 5.8 billion religiously affiliated adults and children around the globe, representing 84% of the 2010 world population of 6.9 billion. Dec 18, 2012
The US is only a small portion of the worlds believers.
Yes, but it is the portion that I care most about.
"Believers" does not necessarily equal "theocratic dominionists". All believers are not. Some are, but not all.
Being a part of the 26% of the American population means exactly what to you?
You missed the point (surprise). I was talking about the USA being a portion of the world. I care about the USA because this is my homeland and has the greatest effect on my life and the lives of those I care about.
Nationalism.
Bullshit. Merely caring more about the one's own nation is not nationalism.
Less than 1/10th of 1% of Christians are dominionists
Of course it is…It’s the very definition of it. America 1st!
That is incredibly over-simplistic. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about here.
I always know what I’m talking about here
Do you have the 'best words' too? Don't emulate Trump, he is a horrible role model.
Christianity forced the followers of the true gods to convert by the sword. Thousand of years later Iceland has raised a Temple worshipping the only gods that have ever existed. Several other countries are following.
Soon the one true religion will be restored.
We will feast at the Great Hall with Odin!
Have you been binging on Vikings reruns ?