Liberals Hate Christianity

[Gawain of Orkeny]

This should be interesting


Liberals Hate Christianity

Liberals disdain the concepts of right and wrong, dismissing them as unscientific value judgments. Their only acknowledged virtue is what they call “tolerance.” Tolerance, however, does not extend to Christianity.

-----------
In an August 28, 2004 article for the Associated Press, Richard N. Ostling notes, “After years of talk about the centrality of conservative Protestants and Catholics in the Republican Party coalition, an opposite factor is gaining wider notice: the Democrats’ reliance upon non-religious voters.”

And, “A religiously linked values clash is redefining U.S. politics, according to Louis Bolce and Gerald De Maio of City University of New York. And if Republicans are labeled the party of religious traditionalists, they assert, “the Democrats with equal validity, can be called the secularist party.”

A University of Akron poll of 4,000 adults this spring showed that those with no religious affiliation are 17 percent of self-identified Democrats, rivaling the party’s traditional blocs of white Catholics (18 percent) and black Protestants (16 percent). The secularists favored John Kerry over George W. Bush by 57.4 percent to 27.2 percent (with the rest backing others or undecided).”

Political maneuvering in the Presidential race so far this year has made clear that an articulate and highly vocal part of our citizenry don’t just oppose Christianity. They hate it.

When a candidate gives witness to his Christian faith, liberals roar like wounded beasts, declaring that this will destroy American freedoms.

All of this is cloaked as sincere devotion to the First Amendment’s establishment clause. Underneath that cloak is the real objective: to establish secular and materialistic socialism as the nation’s official religion. Liberal organizations like the ACLU don’t just want Christianity separated from legislative and executive governance. They want to destroy Christianity and elevate socialism as the governing catechism of political life.

Maggie Gallagher, in a recent column, reports the following, fairly typical attack:

“Robert Reich, a former Cabinet secretary, implies in a recent issue of the “American Prospect” that Christian fundamentalists are even more dangerous than people who blow up skyscrapers. And he defines fundamentalism awfully broadly: ‘Terrorism is a tactic, not a belief. The true battle will be between modern civilization and anti-modernist; between those who believe in the primacy of the individual and those who believe that human beings owe their allegiance and identity to a higher authority ... between those who believe in science, reason and logic, and those who believe that truth is revealed through Scripture and religious dogma. Terrorism will disrupt and destroy lives. But terrorism itself is not the greatest danger we face.’ “

There are three important points to be noted: first, socialism is a secular religion, second, liberalism is the American sect of the international religion of socialism; and, third, liberals cannot be shaken from their religious faith by the unremitting evidence that their religion always fails to deliver the goods.

For details to support these assertions, see
Socialism: Our Unconstitutionally Established Religion

Socialism has failed to deliver on its promises wherever it has been tried, but our liberals simply refuse to abandon it. They remain confident in their secular religious faith that, if they can just push Christians into the ash can of history, a nice, perfect new world can be created by intellectuals running the Federal bureaucracy.

In the religion of liberal-socialism, morality comes, not from God-given natural law, but from the fevered imaginations of intellectual style-setters.

We already know some of the marks of secular perfection in the liberals’ Brave New World: legalized abortion on demand, encouraging sexual promiscuity by distributing condoms in school and teaching young students how to use them; and same-sex marriage. The end point of secular, materialistic socialism is obliterating individuality and personal moral responsibility. We all are to be submerged into classes of more or less equally distributed income and wealth.

As in the Soviet Union, liberal-socialistic planners like Robert Reich are certain that most of the goods and services we buy today are bad for us and bad for the environment. They want to compel us to behave in the proper manner, that is, to buy what they decide is best for us.

The only thing they don’t propose to regulate is the raw sex and violence that pervades TV, movies, and the print media.

[lars573]

Religious people (and ideals) holding too much power in a state is always a bad thing. Liberals are just trying to keep the christians honest (a full time job IMO). By the same tokin too much socialism will always end up strangling a successful state.

[Sjakihata]

liberals doesnt hate christianity - they just hate religion all together.

[The Wizard]

The entire term 'liberal' is mishandled here. I'm a liberal, but I don't hate religion. I love capitalism. I hate communism. I'm a right-winger, but not a conservative. Yes, it's possible. In America, the term is just misused.


~Wiz

[Gawain of Orkeny]

liberals doesnt hate christianity - they just hate religion all together.

Is that so? Did you look at my other thread?

Socialism: Our Unconstitutionally Established National Religion (http://thomasbrewton.srv1.pmachinehosting.com/index.php/weblog/socialism_our_unconstitutionally_established_national_religion/)

[ICantSpellDawg]

this article is a realistic but biased editorialization of truth
and there is alot of that truth in it

the only thing that i can see as wrong is the equation of socialism as secular

it isnt - maybe modern socialism is for the most part secular, but the concepts of many versions, i believe, are based on religious morality

the secular socialism that i fight is the one that proposes that we must all enter into some sort of huge collectivisation program because of egoism rather than altruism

some forms of socialism are prevalent in traditional christian communities on a massive scale and a bit of government sanctioned socialism as a safety net can easily be subscribed to by christian moralists.

to villify "socialism" as anti-religious is a serious mistake from my point of view. it is the secular kind that is absolutely self-defeating in the long run

who knows

i am not religious (logically, i think that it is absurd to believe in a God or moral code, yet i still seek it because there is no real alternative that is more sensible), but any government that legislates without beliefs in a superlative moral code cannot be trusted or respected. if it isnt "wrong" for me to kill or steal then it is agaisnt my interests to have anyone force me not to from a darwinian point of view. It is ok that the govt would protect me, but not ok that it would protect others

who knows
this is part of a larger debate of modernism and the meaning of life

[Don Corleone]

I actually disagree with this article. The Methodist church I belong to is more liberal than conservative, but there's folks of every ilk there on any given Sunday.

I don't think Liberals hate religion, per se. They hate the the socially conservative narrow view that the Southern Baptists tend to take. They also seem to be struggling with the fact that they have a need to 'keep it in the closet'. There's a good book we're reviewing in my Sunday school class called "God's politics". I disagree with his whitewashing of important social issues as irrelevant such as abortion and gay marriage, but I also agree they probably occupy too much of our current debate on morality and what it means to be Christlike.

The fact is, regardless of the reasons, as long as there are children out there starving to death and I'm wondering whether I want a steak or swordfish, I'm in trouble when I die. Yes, behavioral morality is important. I'm called on to follow God's commandments and push myself hard towards Christ's message on personal purity. But I'm also called on to follow the two commandments that are the greatest, according to Christ: To love my God with all my heart and all my soul, and to to love others as I love myself.

I think we need to stop defining a life of Christian witness as being willing to go picket the neighborhood smut shop, or at least limit it to that, and understand when we didn't do all we could to help our brothers and sisters, it was though we snubbed Christ. Cause he told us that's how we was going to take it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

we may be missing the point of the article

"liberals" dont necessarily have a problem with the christ-like message,
the new problems that have arisen come from the logical and historical inconsistencies that created modern christianity in the first place

and these are the reasons that the entire christian religion is being called to task on WHY they believe what they believe

the idea that God did not, in fact, come up with christian morality seriously takes away from its existence as a legitimate moral code. If men decided what was right and wrong and the religion is fallacious, then it is a waste of time to believe in the various tenants

this is where the problem comes from - not benign vs malignant versions of christianity - but from the inherent illogical and potentially man-made and false world view of christianity in general. these make the entire concept ridiculous to follow to the letter.

i dont honestly know what christianity can do to save itself - all it can rely on to stay afloat is ignorance in the presence of certain facts relating to various church histories, blind devotion to an archaic faith and a difficult to follow moral code. when you look at how easy it is to abandon christian ideals when shown a hedonistic modern cultural alternative, it will be amazing to see if the various churches can hold out.

but the death of christianity has been heralded before and, for some odd reason, it has never ceased to exist so far

[Don Corleone]

I don't think I missed anything. The guy is painting with a very broad brush and takes the example of Robert Reich to writ large for any and all liberals in the country. He also equates socialism and American liberals. While they have much in common, they are not mutually inclusive, as the author would have you believe.

What's more, I'm done with this whole silly fight. Has it ever struck anyone on the the religious Right that there are many passages in the gospel, where Christ warns us to not become content with our Faith? "Do not pray on the street corner and beat your chest for all to see, for I assure you, these hypocrites have already had their reward. When you pray to your heavenly father, find a quiet place, and what the Lord hears from you in secret, he will reward, in secret".

This whole business of "I'm more pious than him" is a foolish, and in a theological sense, very dangerous debate to have. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory". I strongly advise anyone who is a follower of Christ out there to stop holding themselves up as an example of a pious person. We all sin, every day, each and every time we pause or hestitate in our obediance to God's word, let alone when we fragrantly disobey it.

One last quote "Remove the plank from your own eye, then you will be able to see better when you remove the splinter from your brother's".

[ichi]

pretty thin, the article makes many wild assertions with no supporting evidence. Seems like someone is trying to fan the flames and keep us all fighting.

My experience is that most folks either support Christianity or they think its misguided, but only a very few hate it.

Lately tho I've seen a dramatic increase in the number of hateful Christians, those who would wipe out the unbelievers and the sinners. Disturbing, because Christ doesn't seem to me to about that.

ichi :bow:

[GodsPetMonkey]

Warning - Troll Article Encountered.... ahh, what the hell!


What's more, I'm done with this whole silly fight. Has it ever struck anyone on the the religious Right that there are many passages in the gospel, where Christ warns us to not become content with our Faith? "Do not pray on the street corner and beat your chest for all to see, for I assure you, these hypocrites have already had their reward. When you pray to your heavenly father, find a quiet place, and what the Lord hears from you in secret, he will reward, in secret".

This whole business of "I'm more pious than him" is a foolish, and in a theological sense, very dangerous debate to have. "For all have sinned and fall short of the glory". I strongly advise anyone who is a follower of Christ out there to stop holding themselves up as an example of a pious person. We all sin, every day, each and every time we pause or hestitate in our obediance to God's word, let alone when we fragrantly disobey it.

:bow:
Once again you have shown understanding and moderation sorely lacking on internet discussion boards.


The mainstream churches seem to be involved in some bizarre competition to show who is the most God fearing/Bible Bashing/etc. It seems to involve attempting be the most direct in forwarding the Christian morale belief on issues that really, Christ never dealt with, or probably cared about. It's funny really, and ultimately, many are not even the domain of the church (I mean, Gay Marriage? Seriously, churches don't have to perform the services, everything else is a matter for the state, and if they end up burning in hell for it, well, that's their business). And at the same time much of Christ’s message seems ignored, or just forgotten.

It makes me think what it was like just before the reformation... Hmmm, probably not enough decadence for another of those just yet.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What's more, I'm done with this whole silly fight. Has it ever struck anyone on the the religious Right that there are many passages in the gospel, where Christ warns us to not become content with our Faith? "Do not pray on the street corner and beat your chest for all to see, for I assure you, these hypocrites have already had their reward. When you pray to your heavenly father, find a quiet place, and what the Lord hears from you in secret, he will reward, in secret".


You are stilll missing the point. Its not about holy rollers but about secularist eg liberals vs religous people eg conservatives. Yes he does paint with a large brush but certainly more secularists are liberlas and more religous people are conservtives in general. Ive seen what he descibes countless times on these boards. This is an argument thats as old as man. Religion tells you theres a higher power and if you dont behave you are screwed. They also tell you others will tell you this is nonsense that there is no god but knowledge. Did you see Ichis post ? What was original sin?

[GodsPetMonkey]

You are stilll missing the point. Its not about holy rollers but about secularist eg liberals vs religous people eg conservatives. Yes he does paint with a large brush but certainly more secularists are liberlas and more religous people are conservtives in general. Ive seen what he descibes countless times on these boards. This is an argument thats as old as man. Religion tells you theres a higher power and if you dont behave you are screwed. They also tell you others will tell you this is nonsense that there is no god but knowledge. Did you see Ichis post ? What was original sin?

I think your becoming out of touch with reality... and your bible. Some of the most 'liberal' people I know (using the American definition) are strong Christians, and some of the most atheist are conservatives. Indeed, I can't see how anyone could consider the Christ of the bible anything other then such a 'liberal'.

[Don Corleone]

Gawain,

There's a LOT of Christian folk out there that are socialists (economically speaking) because they Christian. They believe that Christ commands us to pool our wealth and share it among all who need it. I think they're wrong, but I would never dare to question their belief. I think different people frame the drama of life, including religious life, in different contexts. Just because you think gay marriage is the burning moral issue of our time, and another Christian thinks it's that there's starving people out there, doesn't mean you're not both Christians.

This guy seems to be saying if you're not willing to play the game and take the dare of casting the first stone, you're not a true believer. Well, I'm not going to take the bait. I know there's liberal Christians out there and who am I to question their belief? A humble and weak servant who knows better.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I think your becoming out of touch with reality... and your bible. Some of the most 'liberal' people I know (using the American definition) are strong Christians, and some of the most atheist are conservatives. Indeed, I can't see how anyone could consider the Christ of the bible anything other then such a 'liberal'.

We have been over that many times before and the answers not as simple as you state. I said he was speaking in generalities. Do any of you deny that religous peole tend to be more conservative than secularists or that its secularists and liberals who are trying to take christianity out of anything they dont like because it may offend someone. Its mighty Ironic thata girl using God in her paper is attacked because it may offend someone by them while they back the rights of gays to march in outlandish outfits. Who or what is more likey to offend more people? This answer is directed at you also Don. Again I post things not because I agree with them entirely but to get an interesting converstion going If this


This guy seems to be saying if you're not willing to play the game and take the dare of casting the first stone, you're not a true believer.

If thats what hes saying well that part at least I dont agree with.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think your becoming out of touch with reality... and your bible. Some of the most 'liberal' people I know (using the American definition) are strong Christians, and some of the most atheist are conservatives. Indeed, I can't see how anyone could consider the Christ of the bible anything other then such a 'liberal'.


but here - that is an abusrd statement
supposedly, christ followed a fairly strict form of judaism.

for anyone to claim Christ as a modern liberal, one would have to be daft beyond belief based on what we believe to actually know about him from the New Testament and any historical knowledge that we have.

liberal as in "new thinker" - i think so - but that does not mean that he would have supported abortion or gay marriage

and as a conservative it doesnt mean that he would have supported a war in iraq or darwinian capitalism

this i the point - christianity has no business anywhere in a rational modern world if the new testament is based on falsehoods generated by men who created it without spiritual guidance - it may have certain good ideas, but like the communist manifesto, the declaration of independence, harry potter, it has no ability to claim "truth". If you believe that it does - then it belongs in government to a fairly serious extent and there is really no alternative to that - what is right must be supported by the state

i am not sure where i stand - i think that religion is utter garbage from a logical point of view - but so much of what we believe is based on it that to deny it a place in the public area of life while at the same time using its tenants as justification of ones own "secular" agenda - human rights, socialism based on rights, denouncement of imperialism, etc - is absurd. we must either totally alter our foundational beliefs or try to rationalize what we already subscribe to.

i dont know what to think - there doesnt seem to be a socially harmonizing alternative to modern christian ethics that i, personally, would follow - and in the end - this is all that seems to matter as long as we have a democratically elected government - individual opinion

much needs to be done by churches to figure out if what they beleive is based on superstition and archaic notions or God given truth

[bmolsson]

Liberals have a problem with authority, most of them surely had a problem in school as well. Christianity is a form of authority, hence their reluctance towards it........ ~:)

[ICantSpellDawg]

Liberals have a problem with authority, most of them surely had a problem in school as well. Christianity is a form of authority, hence their reluctance towards it........ ~:)

i dont necessarily agree with that - if authority is arbitrary or based on superstition or political correctness, then it has no place leading me. Even kids who listened in school and are half-way intelligent will tell you that.

people want to be "lead" by ideals based on truth - and truth itself seems to be in short supply on all sides

[GodsPetMonkey]

but here - that is an abusrd statement
supposedly, christ followed a fairly strict form of judaism.

for anyone to claim Christ as a modern liberal, one would have to be daft beyond belief based on what we believe to actually know about him from the New Testament and any historical knowledge that we have.

liberal as in "new thinker" - i think so - but that does not mean that he would have supported abortion or gay marriage

and as a conservative it doesnt mean that he would have supported a war in iraq or darwinian capitalism

Good point, I should restate what I said before, to claim Jesus was a conservative (by modern or contemporary terms) is far fetched, but so is to call him a liberal by modern terms. In fact, I would say no side can claim him as his own, and doing so would be wrong.


this i the point - christianity has no business anywhere in a rational modern world if the new testament is based on falsehoods generated by men who created it without spiritual guidance - it may have certain good ideas, but like the communist manifesto, the declaration of independence, harry potter, it has no ability to claim "truth". If you believe that it does - then it belongs in government to a fairly serious extent and there is really no alternative to that - what is right must be supported by the state

:bow:
Good rational thinking.


i am not sure where i stand - i think that religion is utter garbage from a logical point of view - but so much of what we believe is based on it that to deny it a place in the public area of life while at the same time using its tenants as justification of ones own "secular" agenda - human rights, socialism based on rights, denouncement of imperialism, etc - is absurd. we must either totally alter our foundational beliefs or try to rationalize what we already subscribe to.

IMHO, just because modern society had Christianity as one of its foundations does not mean it should be the end all (sorry Gawain, church and state remain separate). As you said, if it were totally right, it would be, as the state must support what is right. But what is right changes over time, and a lot has changed since the days when the New Testament was written. If you want another example, look at the differences between the New Testament and the Old Testament, clearly what is right and good had changed between the 2 writings. To think otherwise is absurd, and besides, I enjoy meat on Fridays, you don't know what your missing out on ~D


i dont know what to think - there doesnt seem to be a socially harmonizing alternative to modern christian ethics that i, personally, would follow - and in the end - this is all that seems to matter as long as we have a democratically elected government - individual opinion

much needs to be done by churches to figure out if what they beleive is based on superstition and archaic notions or God given truth

:bow:
Let everyone decide for themselves what they want to believe, and decide for themselves what is right, and wrong, and the state allow them to act upon that within what is reasonable to the community at large (a good starting point is if no one is hurt from the act, then why ban it?). The community at large is not only Christians, and I sure wouldn't want the Christian equivalent of Sharia (sp?) law as much as I wouldn't want the Muslim form, even though I am a Christian, and not ashamed of it either. Live and let live.

[Lemur]

Yet another flame-bait article from Gawain with no author, no publication, no link, nada. Where exactly did this theocon screed come from? Who wrote it? Who paid for it?

Gawain, as a courtesy to all of the not-as-conservative-as-you people whom you're trying to infuriate, please cite your sources.

[Navaros]

yes liberals hate Christianity

but that is not news

i pointed this out in my old thread that proved that everyone who does not have the wisdom to realize who Jesus is, will hate Christianity and anyone who stands up for what is good. i'd provide a link to that thread but the search function of these boards is still fubared at the moment ~:eek:

[ichi]

yes liberals hate Christianity

but that is not news

well its news to me, and its not true


i pointed this out in my old thread that proved that everyone who does not have the wisdom to realize who Jesus is, will hate Christianity and anyone who stands up for what is good.

I realize who Jesus was, and I don't hate Christianity.

and, anyone will be way off base thinking that only Christians stand up for what what is good. I know thousands of good people who get up every day and try to do the right thing who don't consider themselves Christians.

This idea is why some people worry about a fundamental Christian theocracy. Not that they hate Christians, but that some Christians mistakenly believe that only they cansee and do good, and the rest of us must be brought into line.

ichi :bow:

[ICantSpellDawg]

well its news to me, and its not true



I realize who Jesus was, and I don't hate Christianity.

and, anyone will be way off base thinking that only Christians stand up for what what is good. I know thousands of good people who get up every day and try to do the right thing who don't consider themselves Christians.

This idea is why some people worry about a fundamental Christian theocracy. Not that they hate Christians, but that some Christians mistakenly believe that only they cansee and do good, and the rest of us must be brought into line.

ichi :bow:

firstly, those people would be fooling themselves
they are doing what is "right" based on the scale of right/wrong provided by whom? a vague notion of the "most important" parts of what they heard when they were children from people who based their ideas on judeo-christian/other Religious Ideas. If these Religions never had the authority to decide what was good/bad in the first place, how can one maintain that a byproduct of them based entirely on them is good? i'd like to know that for my own sake

the second statement is accurate - i also fear that

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yet another flame-bait article from Gawain with no author, no publication, no link, nada. Where exactly did this theocon screed come from? Who wrote it? Who paid for it?

My My we get up on the wrong side of the bed today? I didnt write the title but did find it provocative and worthy of disscussion. Yes I like to use provocative titles as it gets peoples interest. Its not a flame bait.


Gawain, as a courtesy to all of the not-as-conservative-as-you people whom you're trying to infuriate, please cite your sources.

How long have you been using the internet? Do you know how to google?Ive just learned recently how to do it. I didnt have a computer on the internet until I joined the org. I couldnt even cut and paste till someone here taught me . So let this noob give you a little lesson. You see the name of this thread. Well type in into google like I just did and the first match that comes up is this.

LINK (http://www.thomasbrewton.com/index.php/weblog/liberals_hate_christianity/)

Now dont act is if you didnt know that. The same can be said of any thread I post. This aint calculus. I dont see where it came from is going to make any differenve though. Now calm down annd try a little pateince all you need do is ask or use the enormous Lemurmania brain you have. I could likewise accuse you of being lazy and baiting me but I wont go there.

[Kanamori]

So, am I a Liberal?

[Papewaio]

Better question was Jesus a conservative Rabbi or a liberal Rabbi?

[ichi]

they are doing what is "right" based on the scale of right/wrong provided by whom?

by their parents, by their society, by their own internal sense of right and wrong. Religions, including Christian religions, have asked people to do some pretty awful things. To be honest, I'm comfortable making my own decisions about good and bad.

It's rather a nice feeling, to do whats right, and to do it because its right, and you know it to be right, not because someone told you to do or because if you don'tdo it you'll burn in hell.

and we'll just have to disagree about who is fooling themselves ~:cheers:

ichi :bow:

[Big_John]

So, am I a Liberal?well, a first test would be to ask yourself: do you hate christianity? if the answer is yes, you may very well be a liberal (it's not certain though). however, if the answer is no, then you're not. easy as 1, 2, cake.

[ICantSpellDawg]

by their parents, by their society, by their own internal sense of right and wrong. Religions, including Christian religions, have asked people to do some pretty awful things. To be honest, I'm comfortable making my own decisions about good and bad.

It's rather a nice feeling, to do whats right, and to do it because its right, and you know it to be right, not because someone told you to do or because if you don'tdo it you'll burn in hell.

and we'll just have to disagree about who is fooling themselves ~:cheers:

ichi :bow:

so, you believe that inside you know what is right and wrong?

then what about me? do i know, inside, what is right and wrong?

i believe that abortion is wrong
this is a core belief of mine

you may believe that it is right

if "deep down" we both know what is right - and we disagree - chances are that one of us is wrong. and deep down right and wrong wouldnt be worth too much. if one person says murder for ones own convenience is ok and another says it is the worst possible thing to do - how can both be right or wrong?

how can we have a government that protects both what is right and wrong based on everyone's individual beliefs? wouldnt there be serious conflicts of interests there? some people believe that human sacrifice is ok - those being sacrificed probably do not.

who are we then to tell the sacrificer that, even though, deep down, they believe that human sacrifice is right, we have the right to stop them?

im just looking to someone who believes so firmly that they know the way to give me some guidance here, ichi - if you would be so kind

because i am sort of lost

[Gawain of Orkeny]

well, a first test would be to ask yourself: do you hate christianity? if the answer is yes, you may very well be a liberal (it's not certain though). however, if the answer is no, then you're not. easy as 1, 2, cake.

If you read the article hes actually caliming that Liberal/securalists/socialists are the danger not liberals in themselves. I dont know any rightwing securlarists/socialists but I guess there are some.

[Byzantine Prince]

What's so bad about hating Christianity? I hate Christianity along with every other religion. So what? Are you gonna call me evil Gawain? See if I care.


Just sayin hi... :bow: ~;)

[Gawain of Orkeny]

What's so bad about hating Christianity? I hate Christianity along with every other religion. So what? Are you gonna call me evil Gawain? See if I care.


Just sayin hi...

Nope just liberal ~D

Let me be the first to say its good to see you back. ~:cheers:

[Big_John]

by their parents, by their society, by their own internal sense of right and wrong. Religions, including Christian religions, have asked people to do some pretty awful things. To be honest, I'm comfortable making my own decisions about good and bad.

It's rather a nice feeling, to do whats right, and to do it because its right, and you know it to be right, not because someone told you to do or because if you don'tdo it you'll burn in hell.

and we'll just have to disagree about who is fooling themselves ~:cheers:well.. one should certainly examine why they would "know [something] to be right". otherwise, why should you pass the judgement implicit in the statement, "Religions, including Christian religions, have asked people to do some pretty awful things"? how do you decide what is awful? that ethic is coming from somewhere.. and barring people that grew-up outside of society, that ethic is going to be at least somewhat (if not heavily) influenced by the ethical frameworks surrounding the person as they mature. for almost anyone, that's going to involve the influence of some religion.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I dont know any rightwing securlarists/socialists but I guess there are some.


you dont? what about the various religious orders of the catholic church? tons of communal life, charity work and redistribution of wealth there

socialism does not mean secular

im sure that most christians do not wish to have the war of capitalism vs socialism spill over into their realm entirely when they are at war with relativism and religious doubt

as much as many capitalists do not wish to have a religious debate when fighting socialism

you can say that many non-religious people are drawn to secularism just as many religious people are drawn to capitalist concepts - but i maintain that this is less because of ideological similarities and has more to do with traditional alliances - mainstream being defended by mainstream and alternative by alternative

[ichi]

so, you believe that inside you know what is right and wrong?

I believe that I am as qualified as any to seek the truth, and that I can be as right or wrong about things as much as any religion can be. Some questions can be very difficult, perhaps too difficult.


then what about me? do i know, inside, what is right and wrong? I don't know you, but my guess is that you have a moral framework that tells you whether a certain thing is good or bad. Like me, you may not get it right each time.


i believe that abortion is wrong
this is a core belief of mine

you may believe that it is right

I actually find abortion to be abhorrent, but believe it is not the responsibility of the State to dictate whether a woman must carry a child to term (unless it is so late in the pregnancy that the fetus would be able to survive independently)


if "deep down" we both know what is right - and we disagree - chances are that one of us is wrong. and deep down right and wrong wouldnt be worth too much. if one person says murder for ones own convenience is ok and another says it is the worst possible thing to do - how can both be right or wrong?


You mistake my contention that moral values exist independent of the Christian religion with a purely subjective morality. Murder for one's own convenience is always wrong, because it violates the rights of the murdered and would lead to a collapse of society.


how can we have a government that protects both what is right and wrong based on everyone's individual beliefs?

We can't. As a society we must define some common ground, which can be done independent of any religious values. The principles of fairness and equality can help us find this, as it has in the US.


wouldnt there be serious conflicts of interests there? some people believe that human sacrifice is ok - those being sacrificed probably do not.


Human sacrifice without the consent of those being sacrificed is clearly a violation of the concepts of fairness and equality. Each individual is entitled to some basic rights, one of which is not be killed for another's convenience or to appease someone else's god.


who are we then to tell the sacrificer that, even though, deep down, they believe that human sacrifice is right, we have the right to stop them?

Since I, for one, do not wish to be sacrificed to any god, then not only do I have the right, but the obligation to protect those being sacrificed. We do that by banding together as free and independent people, sacrificing our ability to murder others in order to protect ourselves from being murdered.


im just looking to someone who believes so firmly that they know the way to give me some guidance here, ichi - if you would be so kind

looking past the sarcasm I'll try to do the right thing and respond as best I can. First, I do not think that I have all of the answers. I believe that a religion can be just as misguided and wrong in it's beliefs as any person or government, and that by continuing to strive to do what is right, and learning from my (and others) mistakes and successes, I can continue to improve and better life my life doing what is right.

The difference between this philosophy and the theological imperative is that I make decisions for myself, in the context of my society, rather than doing what someone tells me is God's will. The person telling me what God's will is has no more of an insight than I do.


because i am sort of lost

Kepp working at it mate, it'll come to you ~:)

ichi :bow:

[ichi]

well.. one should certainly examine why they would "know [something] to be right". otherwise, why should you pass the judgement implicit in the statement, "Religions, including Christian religions, have asked people to do some pretty awful things"?

Burning people at the stake for failing to recant their religious views is by almost any view, awful. The thing speak for itself.


how do you decide what is awful?

Because I know that being burned at the stake is horrible, and that I wouldn't want to be burned at the stake, I can say that it is wrong to do such a thing to others because of their religious beliefs.


that ethic is coming from somewhere.. and barring people that grew-up outside of society, that ethic is going to be at least somewhat (if not heavily) influenced by the ethical frameworks surrounding the person as they mature. for almost anyone, that's going to involve the influence of some religion.

I concur, and I've said elsewhere many times that I try to live a Jesus asked us, love each of my brothers, turn he other cheek, etc. The influence of religion is evident throughout our society.

That said, I'll continue to believe that the light shines as brightly on me as does on you, or some self-proclaimed holy man. Society can enforce behavior based on standards of fairness and equality and the common good.

ichi :bow:

[Big_John]

Burning people at the stake for failing to recant their religious views is by almost any view, awful. The thing speak for itself.no, it doesn't. nothing like that can speak for itself. you must imbue it with awfulness. and here's why you do that:
Because I know that being burned at the stake is horrible, and that I wouldn't want to be burned at the stake"do unto others..." is a reasonable stance, though i'm not sure that such an ethic is itself devoid of religious influence. why is that ethic valid (or more valid than another, like "kill them before they kill you!")? simply because it, presumably, leads to the most stable form of society?



[you] believe that the light shines as brightly on [you] as does on [me], or some self-proclaimed holy man.this needs a bit of clarification, at least for me. are you speaking of some sort of internal sense, a genetic morality?



Society can enforce behavior based on standards of fairness and equality and the common good.i agree that these three concepts can be evaluated without reference to religious doctrine, and could be used to create a society.

[King of Atlantis]

im a liberal, my family is liberal, and my church for the most part is liberal, but we certainly dont hate christianity as we are christian.

When anyone claims that liberals arnt christian i just want to...


:disguise: :rifle:

[bmolsson]

Better question was Jesus a conservative Rabbi or a liberal Rabbi?

Maybe he was a Pagan ...... ~:)

[ichi]

no, it doesn't. nothing like that can speak for itself. you must imbue it with awfulness.

Semantics. Seeing something as being awful is, of course, based on the viewers subjective perceptions. We are humans, and the awfulness of bing burned to death is readily obvious to any reasonable person. Hence, ipso locutor.


why is that ethic valid (or more valid than another, like "kill them before they kill you!")? simply because it, presumably, leads to the most stable form of society?

The idea of treating others as you would be treated is more than a way to achieve a stable society, it is a guideline to fairness, which is a moral value.

Again, I'm not proposing moral relativism or the idea that each of us is free to act on our own individual vlaues. I'm simply putting forth the idea that there are moral frameworks and value systems that are not based on divine revelation or religious decrees.

It is possible to be moral, just, and good without being a Christian. It is possible to claim to be Christian and do evil. I'm arguing against the belief that


everyone who does not have the wisdom to realize who Jesus is, will hate Christianity and anyone who stands up for what is good.

ichi :bow:

[Big_John]

ok, thanks for clearing up your stance for me.

[Husar]

Maybe I should throw in that one of the worst things that happened to Christianity was the Catholic Church. I don´t call the Catholic Church christian because it simply isn´t.
Jesus never sid one should crusade, he never said one should burn infidels, instead he said one should love his enemies. And tell me where the bible said that there should be any pope who represents God and is elected by men after more than one poll. If God would know who shall be pope, why would they need more than one poll? Can´t the Catholic god decide or what? Now where did the bible say one should pray to holy people who are dead? Doesn´t it say we should let the dead rest?
The bible also says one shall not make pictures of God, but yet the Catholic Church painted old men with beards everywhere. :dizzy2:

Don´t take them as an example for Christianity please, I could probably come up with more things like that, but I think that´s enough for now.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Semantics. Seeing something as being awful is, of course, based on the viewers subjective perceptions. We are humans, and the awfulness of bing burned to death is readily obvious to any reasonable person. Hence, ipso locutor.

The idea of treating others as you would be treated is more than a way to achieve a stable society, it is a guideline to fairness, which is a moral value.

Again, I'm not proposing moral relativism or the idea that each of us is free to act on our own individual vlaues. I'm simply putting forth the idea that there are moral frameworks and value systems that are not based on divine revelation or religious decrees.



I like this position, I just dont believe it. This is where we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that humans have any inherent morality. You seem to.
The morality that you seem to be referring to is a fairly advanced version of egoism that was not present in me when i was a child. I cannot prove my stance, but simply give evidence, based on the fact that many children seem to have no "morality" other than getting what is best for themselves. Occasionally, there is a change in behaviour, but i am not sure whether that comes from a the example of a model (parent, etc) or whether deep down they are "good".
Do you believe, also, that "basic human morality" was the basis for religion in the first place? That Religion was man-made and made "basic human morality" overly complicated?
Probable, but I cannot confirm this and most religious people do not believe this. It denies the metaphysical element that makes Religion more than philosophy, thus giving it moral legitimacy in the first place.

[Ronin]

one doesn´t have time to dice this up into little groups...i hate everybody!!!. ~D


loool...now seriously....i´d say i hate organized religion.........personal religious convictions i can´t say that i hate them, i´d argue as to their lack of point but i don´t hate them ~;)

[The Black Ship]

This is more an aside, but here goes:

Say at the end of your days there is nothing. Nothing but death. No reward for being moral, virtuous, good... no judgement for hurting others, for demeaning others, for stealing from others etc... You're just dead. Noone will remember you in a few generations, nor nothing you did (good or bad), and your bones will eventually be reabsorbed into the earth.

It's as if you never existed.

What was the point? Further, what was the point of being "moral"? Virtue as it's own reward? What reward? That you felt good about yourself while alive? Why? Wouldn't you also have felt good spending all those ill-gotten gains...if only you didn't feel sooo guilty?

Religion is necessary IMHO. Pick one, they all seem to have the same goal.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
I dont know any rightwing securlarists/socialists but I guess there are some.



you dont? what about the various religious orders of the catholic church? tons of communal life, charity work and redistribution of wealth there


The catholic church is secular now? ~:confused:

Look the guy is speaking in generalities. How many catholic secularists are there? The church itself is certainly a socialist orginization. Its the combination of the thwo, socialist, secularist that causes the trouble. The facts are that you are far more likely to be these two if you are liberal. Socialist religious have the same problem as they still believe that god and not man has the final word. This is the thrust of the article. Its about the eternal battle of believers vs non believers.

[Big_John]

I like this position, I just dont believe it. This is where we will have to agree to disagree. I do not believe that humans have any inherent morality. You seem to.i may be wrong, but i actually don't think he is claiming that you need to believe in an inherent morality. he seems to be arguing that a human mind can conceptualize a moral framework without an appeal to the metaphysical. specifically, fairness can be used as the basis for a moral code of a society. fairness itself can essentially be computed; it's a nearly quantitative property (though in a society of more than a few individuals, such a computation would very quickly become much too complicated and require abstraction).

now the legitimacy of using that morality over any other is a separate question. nothing in the description, that i can see, indicates that this morality has an innate justification. but no justification is as good for me as a justification relying on the metaphysical. and societies rarely need to justify their rules anyway, afaik.

[Don Corleone]

There's a big problem with fairness as a universal standard, as it is an incredibly relative term that means different things to different people.

Is equal opportunity for success fairness, or equal success itself?
Is it fair for me to defend myself in my own home, or is it fair rule that everyone must not harm anyone?

You catch my drift? We always think we ourselves are being 'fair', and it's always the other guy that's being 'unfair'. It's entirely subjective and there's nothing universal about that standard at all.

[ichi]

@ Big John and Tuff , thanks for the good discussion. This topic has the potential to bring teh lock and teh ban

ichi :bow:

[SwordsMaster]

That article is just lame. And if that guy got a job in a serious newspaper with a title such as "Liberals hate christianity" which is so broad, absurd and not funded on anything but specific comments of a few, and extended it to nearly half of the US population then he is even dumber than his article.


Seriously, the guy who wrote that article was not impartial or even fair. I mean, left in his hands he would stake and burn every liberal in sight. On the other hand he isnt considering but christians in his speculations. What about jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc that populate the american landscape? Are they supposed to go to mass on weekends too?

Don Corleone
Is it fair for me to defend myself in my own home, or is it fair rule that everyone must not harm anyone?

Well, it is fair for you do do anything you please if you are ready to accept the consequences. You cant shoot someone and expect to go unpunished.

[Big_John]

Well, it is fair for you do do anything you please if you are ready to accept the consequences. You cant shoot someone and expect to go unpunished.he's talking about self-defense, should violence in the defense of one's own life be punished? the don brings up good points, and i'd like to see ichi respond to them (since the fairness proposition came from him in this thread). as the relationships between individuals in a society grow in complexity, 'fairness' becomes difficult to conceptualize, much less maintain. does it become untenable?

ichi.. i can see teh lock, but who would get teh ban from this topic??

[SwordsMaster]

I know he was talking about self defense.

My point is, violence should never be absolutely ruled out. A society that turns its back to violence becomes a group of scared lambs ready to be destroyed by the first passer-by.

After that it is a question of priorities, you can recur to violence if you feel that the punishment for using it is worth taking (say a prison sentence over getting killed) or not. As simple as it gets.

[Big_John]

My point is, violence should never be absolutely ruled out. A society that turns its back to violence becomes a group of scared lambs ready to be destroyed by the first passer-by.oh ok, i never would have gotten that from post #50.


After that it is a question of priorities, you can recur to violence if you feel that the punishment for using it is worth taking (say a prison sentence over getting killed) or not. As simple as it gets.i don't quite understand this. in the text i bolded, are you saying that a person should weigh a prison sentence versus being killed by an attacker?

[SwordsMaster]

yup. If the kills the attacker he would be prosecuted with or without sentence, right? or at least he would be in any civilised country, anyway if he values his life higher than a prosecution he should shoot the attacker, if he doesnt, then he shouldnt. Im not taking away his right of shooting or not shooting though.

[Goofball]

im a liberal, my family is liberal, and my church for the most part is liberal, but we certainly dont hate christianity as we are christian.

When anyone claims that liberals arnt christian i just want to...


:disguise: :rifle:

That's not very Christian of you...

~;)

[Don Corleone]

yup. If the kills the attacker he would be prosecuted with or without sentence, right? or at least he would be in any civilised country, anyway if he values his life higher than a prosecution he should shoot the attacker, if he doesnt, then he shouldnt. Im not taking away his right of shooting or not shooting though.

Sorry, I have to disagree with you here, Swords. Shocker. You're saying that we have a moral obligation to allow an attacker to do whatever they will to us and when we attempt to defend ourselves, we deserve prison time?

[PanzerJaeger]

Progressives (not liberals in the purest sense of the word) always hate things based in tradition and history. Whats more, they hate things that must be taken on faith - as faith cant be measured or tested. So whats the biggest institution based on tradition and faith in America and Western Europe? - the Christian church in all its variations of course.

They are just people who cannot be allowed to hold any power in our country, its that simple. We shouldn't try to make them understand why they should exercise their own strong belief in tolerance towards Christians and traditionalists - we should just make sure they never have any influence.

Oh and the only reason they sympathize with Islam is because there is a strong anti-american sentiment in much of that world, and progressives hate America almost as much as Christianity and other organized religion.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Now your in trouble Panzer. You better learn to duck. :hide:

[ichi]

They are just people who cannot be allowed to hold any power in our country, its that simple.

wow PJ , what would you say if someone posted here that Christians are so misguided they should never be allowed any say in our government?

The strength of our country is based on the free expression of diverse ideas, including those calling for the exclusion of those who think differently.

So you'll forgive me if I think you're a little off-base here.

and that I worry that the polarization of our country will soon tear us apart.

ichi :bow:

[Don Corleone]

wow PJ , what would you say if someone posted here that Christians are so misguided they should never be allowed any say in our government?

The strength of our country is based on the free expression of diverse ideas, including those calling for the exclusion of those who think differently.

So you'll forgive me if I think you're a little off-base here.

and that I worry that the polarization of our country will soon tear us apart.

ichi :bow:
While I agree with you that PJ's comments were a little out of line, people do post here, all the time, claiming that Christians are so misguided they shouldn't be allowed in government. I think we all need to calm down. Must be the summer heat.

[PanzerJaeger]

wow PJ , what would you say if someone posted here that Christians are so misguided they should never be allowed any say in our government?

Relativity is never a good argument. I believe that there are definite rights and wrongs, goods and bads.

In this case I would say that that person is simply wrong. Our country is much stronger when run by traditionalists, many of whom happen to be Christian, than by progressives.

And Im not arguing for any kind of Christian theocracy, as I dont practice my faith. However, I would never support a group of people who are openly hostile to Christians.

Progressives, liberals, socialists.. I think we all know the type.. are nothing but bad news for America. Theyre a fifth column in this country who work to subvert traditional american values. Their vision of america is an ugly mix of moral degradation, weakness, and intolerance of anything they dont like.

On the other hand, the American government has been run for years now by traditionalist Christians and where is all this intolerance predicted from the left?

Id much rather place the security of my freedom not to practice Christianity in the hands of Christians, than in the hands of progressives.



The strength of our country is based on the free expression of diverse ideas, including those calling for the exclusion of those who think differently.

To a certain extent.. However, aggressive leftists should not be tolerated in any nation or they run the risk of the unfortunate events of 1917.

[ichi]

While I agree with you that PJ's comments were a little out of line, people do post here, all the time, claiming that Christians are so misguided they shouldn't be allowed in government. I think we all need to calm down. Must be the summer heat.


So you'll forgive me if I think you're a little off-base here.

you're right, I can't believe I got upset and posted that ~:confused:

ichi :bow:

[King of Atlantis]

That's not very Christian of you...

~;)

dont worry i will ask for forgiveness... ~;)

[SwordsMaster]

Sorry, I have to disagree with you here, Swords. Shocker. You're saying that we have a moral obligation to allow an attacker to do whatever they will to us and when we attempt to defend ourselves, we deserve prison time?


No. I said that if you are ready to cross the law to defend yourself you should also be ready to accept the consequences.

[Don Corleone]

And I'm saying it shouldn't be against the law to defend oneself.

What is the purpose of the law? When the law doesn't serve it's purpose, don't we have an obligation to change it? Assuming of course, it's against the law to defend oneself.

[econ21]

I'm a progressive/liberal/whatever label the US right wish to use for people like Robert Reich. Like Reich, I deeply dislike religious fundamentalism. Arguing a position on a contemporary moral or political issue based on a literal reading of a 2000 year old text just leaves me cold. Especially when opening any random page of that text - Old Testament at least - I usually find something so morally repellent, I have to stop reading. Like Reich, I prefer to debate things in "rationalist" terms, appealing to logic, empirical evidence and fundamental moral values or intuitions.

However, I also suspect that - despite my aetheism as an adult - my fundamental moral values and intuitions are rooted in a Christian culture and a Christian childhood. Much of Jesus's teachings can be used to justify values that are central to progressive/liberal beliefs - compassion, equality, self-sacrifice, fraternity, internationalism, respect, non-violence and tolerance. Unlike some among the US right, I would not try to claim any or all of these virtues for my part of the political spectrum only. But I suspect these values motivate many "liberals" who unlike me have not lost their faith, Clinton and Blair being the two most obvious contemporary examples.

[Steppe Merc]

Yay. I'm so glad that just by being a liberal, I can be not only anti American, but also anti Christian, as well as being anti many other things. ~:grouphug:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Yay. I'm so glad that just by being a liberal, I can be not only anti American, but also anti Christian, as well as being anti many other things

No ones saying that


But I suspect these values motivate many "liberals" who unlike me have not lost their faith, Clinton and Blair being the two most obvious

Clinton? ~:confused: Hasnt lost faith in what himself?


I deeply dislike religious fundamentalism.

You can pretty much put anything you like in front of fundamentalism and it would be just as bad.

[Steppe Merc]

No ones saying that
Well no. But the articale says that Liberals hate christanity. And I've heard liberals hate America, as well as babies (?) and other silly things. Not in this thread, but in general.

Oh, and the author of that articale reminds me of Archie Bunker, for some reason.

[econ21]

Clinton? ~:confused: Hasnt lost faith in what himself?


I knew that would get a rise. There was an interesting article in the Sunday Times by the right-wing commentator Andrew Sullivan. It was on the now elderly Billy Graham and argued that he represented a different kind of evangelical to the Christian right now vocal in the US. As a case in point, he referred to a public meeting involving Graham and the Clintons. IIRC, Bill Clinton said something to the effect that he always wanted to be an evangelist. Graham joked that Clinton should have become an evangelist and left running the country to Hilary. Sullivan observed that such a comment would be unthinkable from the Christian right, among whom hatred of the Clintons has become an article of faith.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Graham joked that Clinton should have become an evangelist and left running the country to Hilary. Sullivan observed that such a comment would be unthinkable from the Christian right, among whom hatred of the Clintons has become an article of faith.

Because its ridiculous and as he said jokingly. Certainly Clinton has the charisma to be an evangelist but more like Baker than Graham.Hes not alluding to Clintons faith here. I mean hes famous for being unfaithful ~D

[econ21]

Because its ridiculous and as he said jokingly. Certainly Clinton has the charisma to be an evangelist but more like Baker than Graham.Hes not alluding to Clintons faith here. I mean hes famous for being unfaithful ~D

I'm not sure. Someone once said politicians were either bishops or bookies - ie holier than thou preachy types or shrewd wheeler-dealers[1]. On form, Clinton could give uplifting evangelical type speeches - yes, it was in large part charisma but I also think he was drawing on Christian values. Even the way he dealt with his adultery was through evangelical self-flagellating "I'm a miserable sinner" type appeals, rather than a secular "mind your own business" rebuttal.

[1] On reflection, I suspect the most successful politicians are bookies who can pretend to be bishops. Blair and Clinton may be cases in point. As someone else once said, if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Even the way he dealt with his adultery was through evangelical self-flagellating "I'm a miserable sinner" type appeals, rather than a secular "mind your own business" rebuttal.

Are we talking about the same guy here? He may have said that to Graham but he certainly didnt come off that way to many Americans. In fact he said he did it because he could.

[Don Corleone]

Yeah, his 'apology' to the nation was (paraphrasing here) "Today, I answered questions nobody should ever be asked, but because I'm such a decent guy, I answered them. Some people misunderstood what I was trying to tell them earlier on and now they're claiming that I lied. I didn't, but even if I had, it's none of their or your business".

[Ronin]

Yeah, his 'apology' to the nation was (paraphrasing here) "Today, I answered questions nobody should ever be asked, but because I'm such a decent guy, I answered them. Some people misunderstood what I was trying to tell them earlier on and now they're claiming that I lied. I didn't, but even if I had, it's none of their or your business".


that was basically it, yeah

[Gawain of Orkeny]

And dont forget he was getting spiritual guidance at this point from the Reverend Ja ackson who at the time was hiding his love child. Suddednly there were pictures of Clinton going to church and carrying his bible. What a farce. You notice he dont tote it around no more.

[econ21]

Are we talking about the same guy here? He may have said that to Graham but he certainly didnt come off that way to many Americans. In fact he said he did it because he could.

I don't think it was said to Graham, but it was said to a group of Christians and televised. IIRC, they were mainly African Americans. It was some time after the incident. Now you mention it, I do recall the televised "apology" to the American nation that was po-faced, defensive and unconvincing.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

but it was said to a group of Christians and televised. IIRC, they were mainly African Americans.

~D Come on hes playing to his base ~D He was the first black american president you know. You think he was sincere? Hes still having affairs though with a wife like Madame Hilary who can blame him. I bet if and when they do have sex she takes the dominant position.

[SwordsMaster]

And I'm saying it shouldn't be against the law to defend oneself.

What is the purpose of the law? When the law doesn't serve it's purpose, don't we have an obligation to change it? Assuming of course, it's against the law to defend oneself.


I am not arguing the law. Would you defend yourself if it was against the law? Does your resolve to engage in violence change depending if it is legal or not? Thats my point. The law is just one of many consequences of your action which is to shoot the invader.

And I agree with Simon in what he said about the christianity, except that I'm probably even more relativistic than he is when people's decisions are concerned. As he says, interpreting literally a 2000 old text that is incomplete for starters and wasnt even intended to be taken literally in the beginning is just not sensible.

[Don Corleone]

I am not arguing the law. Would you defend yourself if it was against the law? Does your resolve to engage in violence change depending if it is legal or not? Thats my point. The law is just one of many consequences of your action which is to shoot the invader.


Yes, I would. So go ahead and try to save a few home invaders lives and happiness... they come banging on the Don's door and they're going to have issues. Why are you obsessed with enslaving people to the point where criminals have the right to home invade and people don't have the right to defend themselves? Do you rob people's houses on a regular basis?

[SwordsMaster]

Yes, I would. So go ahead and try to save a few home invaders lives and happiness... they come banging on the Don's door and they're going to have issues. Why are you obsessed with enslaving people to the point where criminals have the right to home invade and people don't have the right to defend themselves? Do you rob people's houses on a regular basis?


Well, my range of activity is beside the point of my post. And I'm not trying to save home invaders or leave anyone unprotected. I'm just saying that you will take a decision if you are ready to face the cosequences. Imagine that the invader is the one making the decision to shoot or not. If he doesnt shoot then he will get shot himself. If he does shoot he'll be spending a good time in prison. The decision will depend on what he values more, his life or his freedom. Not on his moral code.

[Don Corleone]

I got news for ya. If he's standing in my bedroom, waving a pistol around, the decision has already been made for him.

[SwordsMaster]

I got news for ya. If he's standing in my bedroom, waving a pistol around, the decision has already been made for him.

Oh, today's youth.... Where's you abstract thinking? I'm not talking about that specific event but about the act of pulling the trigger or not as a personal decision based on ones priorities and not on a doctrine.

[Don Corleone]

Are you trying to make the point about whether I factor external stimulus into my decision making process or not?

Fair enough, but you probably didn't pick the best issue to use as self-defense tends to be intensely personal and hopefully, spur of the moment. I suppose you could pre-meditate a self defense, but you'd have a hard time selling it to a jury you had no other options. Last I checked, booby-trapping your place is illegal and not considered self-defense.

I have a wife (and now a baby on the way) to think about. I'm not going to let somebody take them away from me. I'd rather die, and yes, I have made that decision ahead of time and there's very little the government could threaten me with that would change my mind (actually, the only thing I can think of is them taking them away from me now if I don't submit to a life of defenseless slavery).

Again, why is it so important to you that people leave themselves vulernable and defenseless? Sorry, you lost me hours ago.

[SwordsMaster]

ok, maybe the example wasnt the best....


I have a wife (and now a baby on the way) to think about. I'm not going to let somebody take them away from me. I'd rather die, and yes, I have made that decision ahead of time and there's very little the government could threaten me with that would change my mind

exactly my point. But religion didnt have a say in that decision did it? (well, except maybe marrying you...)


Again, why is it so important to you that people leave themselves vulernable and defenseless? Sorry, you lost me hours ago.

That wasnt my point really... My point was that fairness is very subjective and anything you consider necessary is "fair" if you are prepared to face the consequences of your actions.

[Don Corleone]

I made that point pages ago. "Fair" is what I want. "Unfair" is what you want that differs from that.

[ICantSpellDawg]

exactly my point. But religion didnt have a say in that decision did it? (well, except maybe marrying you...)



this notion flys in the face of self preservation and i believe that all altruism in western culture is derived from religious assumption

it becomes so habitual that even if one is not religious, they are taught to put certain relatives safety and well-being above their own

it serves no real egoistc purpose to save the life of a wife, sybling, child or parent at the expense of your own life

if it wasnt for this simple fact (for so many, but not all), i would disbelieve in the possible existence of a right and wrong entirely

[Big_John]

it serves no real egoistc purpose to save the life of a wife, sybling, child or parent at the expense of your own lifein so much as the ego is affected/produced by biology, there are certainly biological reasons for an individual to risk their own life to ensure the survival of their children. moreover, a response of violence against an attacker should not necessarily be seen as a conscious decision to forfeit one's life for the protection of one's family. such a response, while endangering the individual, may be adaptively advantageous for populations.

[Don Corleone]

exactly my point. But religion didnt have a say in that decision did it? (well, except maybe marrying you...)


Well, in truth, it is my religion that makes me at times question my right to defend myself. It certainly is what brought me to a place that I find capital punishment unacceptable. If I have any questions about the war, it is because of Christ's teachings, not because of the pathetic ramblings of a Left that seems to relish it's own destruction. This religion is also is what tempers a lot of other base instincts I have. My wife and unborn child, well, okay, I'm not Abraham. I would not allow these to be sacraficed. Call me small, and a weak follower.

So, I guess your point, now that I've given it a couple of hours to calm down and reflect upon it, is that I'm a hypocrite, that my so-called religious morality is no less tenuous than the concept of 'fairness' that gets tossed around. Fair enough. I wouldn't let you carve my wife and unborn child up, but I probably would let you do it to me. I guess I am a hyporcrite. Must be nice to be able to take the high ground on these issues. Are you in a penitentiary or something?

[SwordsMaster]

why? Do types like me usually end up in one? ~;)


So, I guess your point, now that I've given it a couple of hours to calm down and reflect upon it, is that I'm a hypocrite, that my so-called religious morality is no less tenuous than the concept of 'fairness' that gets tossed around.

I never said that. But you realise yourself that religion plays a smaller role in real life than it would if the bible was followed to the letter. Because following it to the letter is not what it was meant when the bible was written and humans felt similarly about similar things then and now.

As of fairness it doesnt exist. There are just hings that you are going to do something about because they bother you more intensely and others you will ignore because you consider them insignificant. The things themselves and your reaction will depend on the priority you set yourself and no religion or law can set for you.

Thats why Democracy is crap. It destroys your independency without even giving you a chance to fight for it.

[Papewaio]

this notion flys in the face of self preservation and i believe that all altruism in western culture is derived from religious assumption


Altruism is a net gain for the gene if the sacrifice of one preserves many.

All you have to do is save two children to be even there and then. Those children will then go on to have more children and so on, the genes prosper.

On the other hand if you let your own kids die then your genes die to.

Your genes don't like that at all.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Altruism is a net gain for the gene if the sacrifice of one preserves many.

All you have to do is save two children to be even there and then. Those children will then go on to have more children and so on, the genes prosper.

On the other hand if you let your own kids die then your genes die to.

Your genes don't like that at all.


yes - but honestly - i am not driven by genes

survival of the species doesnt matter to me at all

the "net gain" of my genetic survival matters not at all

when faced with imminent death if i save my child or spouse - it is altruism that will save them - not some inherent notion of a greater social good

if they exist to better serve me - then their deaths to prolong my life are in my interests from a logical standpoint

they can be replaced as long as i am alive

this is where egoism can no longer explain life - the idea that i have a will to keep society going based on my selfish reasoning falls flat - imo

[bmolsson]

but honestly - i am not driven by genes


We have noticed that.... ~;)

[Big_John]

yes - but honestly - i am not driven by genes

survival of the species doesnt matter to me at all

the "net gain" of my genetic survival matters not at all

when faced with imminent death if i save my child or spouse - it is altruism that will save them - not some inherent notion of a greater social goodyou give yourself too little credit. ~;) you need not be consciously aware of your own altruistic programing to carry out the instructions. also, in terms of inclusive fitness, an adaptation towards altruistic behavior would apply directly to populations, not individuals. 'abberations' could certainly be found in healthy populations. to draw a distinction between altruism and "some inherent notion of a greater social good" is not entirely necessary. if one replaces "social" with "genetic" in that
sentence, the phrase becomes even more redundant.


if they exist to better serve me - then their deaths to prolong my life are in my interests from a logical standpoint

they can be replaced as long as i am alive

this is where egoism can no longer explain life - the idea that i have a will to keep society going based on my selfish reasoning falls flat - imoi understand that you are speaking specifically about "egoism", a concept i have little experience with. however, as i mentioned earlier, the ego itself can be considered as a property of the brain and it's chemistry. as such, it is beholden to evolutionary considerations. from an evolutionary standpoint, over human history, replacing offspring is likely more difficult than protecting the ones that you have successfully raised to their present age. you have no guarantee that you will live to sire other children if your current ones die. so investing all that you can in their protection would be logical. also, again, the adaptation of 'putting one's life at risk to protect one's children' does not necessarily need to be seen as a kind of virtual suicide.