Why does the Religious Right vote and fight against Social Mercy? (revised title)

reply to post by WarminIndy

In other words, without the South’s religiosity, "America" would again look like a developed, secular country, a country where it’s probable for an atheist to be elected into public office, and where the other 50 million law-abiding atheists wouldn’t be looked upon as rapists, thieves and murders.

Okay, I think we have crossed wires here....
the sentence above says, to my comprehension, that 50 million law-abiding atheists are 'looked upon' (unjustly) as likely future or present-day rapists, thieves and murder[er]s.

Not that they are (statistics presented show they are not; whether to take those statistics as fact is another subject), rather that they are perceived as probably on the brink of rape, thievery and murder; that is, guilty by non-association with whatever religion, by default (in the literal sense of the term).

Is that what you were getting at?

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


After I began to read it, I realized I had read it before on Huffington Post religious link on Twitter. That was last week.

Education and food has been altered and minipulated to a point that has become unhealthy for the body and soul. We live in a controlled world that relies upon a simple positive and negative emotions to energise the whole planet. Completly merging left or right by everyone would cause a shutdown. The core is the ground side and we are the connectors that the energy or chi flows through different realms that are stacked. Simular to a car battery. How often do our bare feet touch the ground? I think it is better to be a conductor than a resistor.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Interesting article and your OP does raise some questions that I have pondered a few times. After reading the thread I will say Cuervo was spot on. It has been my experience the negative issues influence the religious minded more than the positive such as gay rights, abortion, and evolution when voting.

I have a lot of family in the south a good portion live in Alabama where my uncle is a pastor and on those occasions where we all get together politics sometimes arises. I don't dare speak my mind, but I will sometimes pose questions or interject some information. Even though they may agree the subject such as a living wage would actually reduce abortion statistics the fact that abortion is still legal trumps their decision making. In reality they know Roe vs Wade isn't going to be overturned regardless of who is in office.

Sure they agree that developing renewable clean energy would be better in the long run or it would have been better for a single payer system and corporations have too much power they even think the Iraq war was BS but it is the things that get them angry that solidifies their vote. If you pick their brain you will find they think everyone should have equal rights(just not now) and they know evolution is observable but they don't like that children have to learn it. The subject of evolution being taught in school invokes some strange responses sometimes. lol

But back to your OP. I remember last election when Ayn Raynd was the topic of discussion for a while and a lot of what she was for ran counter intuitive to what I understand would be Jesuses teachings but if I remember correctly a lot of the Christian right embraced those principles. I don't know if that still rings true or not but it seems that way. Well if the media can keep people focused on their anger issues then it will not matter but if they can't we may see another political flop in our lifetime.

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

In other words, without the South’s religiosity, "America" would again look like a developed, secular country, a country where it’s probable for an atheist to be elected into public office, and where the other 50 million law-abiding atheists wouldn’t be looked upon as rapists, thieves and murders.

Okay, I think we have crossed wires here....
the sentence above says, to my comprehension, that 50 million law-abiding atheists are 'looked upon' (unjustly) as likely future or present-day rapists, thieves and murder[er]s.

Not that they are (statistics presented show they are not; whether to take those statistics as fact is another subject), rather that they are perceived as probably on the brink of rape, thievery and murder; that is, guilty by non-association with whatever religion, by default (in the literal sense of the term).

Is that what you were getting at?

edit on 3/20/2014 by BuzzyWigs because: (no reason given)

When we say "law abiding" citizens, are we referring to people who keep the definitions of laws and statutes? Do atheists and Christians drive over the speed limit? Yes, we could agree that both sides do, so in essence they are not law abiding.

What it means to me, as a Christian, that "law abiding" and certainly no one goes around accusing atheists of being rapists simply because they are atheists. I am not doing that. But here is what it means to me, that if the definition of a crime is changed, then the definition of "law abiding" changes with it. We wouldn't say today that sodomy is a crime, but it was once called "the infamous crime against nature". Then as society changed, the definition of whether or not it was a crime changed also, so now it is no longer a crime. But one who broke that law was a "law breaker".

But no one is accusing atheists of being rapists, thieves or murderers simply because they are atheist, so that's not even an issue. On the other hand, atheists are accusing the religions of being rapists, thieves and murders, whether it is the religious right, Zionists, whatever the religion is, of being guilty by association.

All Catholics are guilty of association because priests were pedophiles or potential pedophiles, therefore if we do away with Catholicism, then there won't be pedophiles, even though we have NAMBLA. So, some atheists are refusing to acknowledge guilt by association of gay marriage proponents to NAMBLA at the same time charging Catholics. Hence, we have a huge problem in identification of what is legal or moral and what a crime is.

But if the author is suggesting that it is not a crime for an atheist, because he is law abiding, according to moral relativism, then rape should not be called rape. That's the heart of the argument, are atheists viewed as not law abiding? With those three crimes mentioned, then the author is appealing to secular law to define what is a crime. If secular law means that humans are the authors of law, and there is no divine inspiration for law, then laws are the whim of human imagination and only within the context of the prevailing attitudes of a society.

We now have young people believing that because five states passed laws for marijuana use, that it is now Constitutional. But they believe that if it is not a crime in Colorado, then it is not a crime in Indiana. Now the whole argument swings back to what exactly is a crime and if it is a crime, then the crime must be reclassified. If an atheist smokes marijuana in Indiana, he is not law abiding, but then attempts to say it is not morally wrong and proven by Colorado that it is not wrong. See how definitions change according to moral relativism? The same way with Christians, who many do have moral relativism themselves. Even in those southern states mentioned in the article.

Racism is spouted against Southern states by the media, and yet Indiana has the largest membership in the KKK. We are told in the media that whites don't like Obama because he is black, therefore keeping the lie out there. So let's do away with the definition of racism, because it is moral relativism, but then let's only charge one group and then we have a wave of the Knockout Game, which isn't called racism because the oppressed minority is doing it, for them, it's not racism even though they specifically targeted people of other races.

The author is proposing that crime is only crime if it is the Religious Right doing it, because atheists are law abiding citizens. That is changing the definitions of crimes and therefore laws. Without recognition that not all atheists are law abiding citizens, but only the religious are non-law abiding, the author assumes then that we are applying to atheists what should not be called crimes for them.

and your thread will end up in the trash bin in 3...2...1...

stormson
and your thread will end up in the trash bin in 3...2...1...

Why is that??

So far it seems fairly civil to me. Seems like the OP is being honest and open minded to the opinions of others as well. So what's the problem??

No morals won't come from religion. They stem from personal experiences, a person who has lived with a religion their entire life will hold the morals from that religion, simply because it's been drilled into them from day one.
I see it as drills I did in the army, at first you may not be good but through time you will become better until it becomes muscle memory, however it must be done on a daily basis or you become sloppy. Just depends what you're doing, enough good acts and you get used to it, enough bad acts and you learn to live with it.

You don't need religion for moral justification of what you do that's the bottom line.

blueyezblkdragon
No morals won't come from religion. They stem from personal experiences, a person who has lived with a religion their entire life will hold the morals from that religion, simply because it's been drilled into them from day one.
I see it as drills I did in the army, at first you may not be good but through time you will become better until it becomes muscle memory, however it must be done on a daily basis or you become sloppy. Just depends what you're doing, enough good acts and you get used to it, enough bad acts and you learn to live with it.

You don't need religion for moral justification of what you do that's the bottom line.

Or maybe it is because some religious people don't live up to the morals they proclaim to believe? Or is it because of the multiplicity of religions and religious expressions that we are expecting one religious group to act like another?

And what you are referring to are mores, each society has mores and taboos. Sometimes those are contrary to religion, even within different religions. The author is under the impression that it is Christianity that is ruining it for the rest of the country, but doesn't address the different mores and taboos from area to area, even within the United States.

mo·res (môr′āz′, -ēz, mōr′-)
pl.n.
1. The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group.
2. Moral attitudes.
3. Manners; ways.

None of this is dependent upon religion, or it can be all dependent upon religion. Moral attitudes, which is part of your last statement

You don't need religion for moral justification of what you do

If we removed moral justification for what we do, then it becomes a more, then it seems to lead to my argument, that since nothing can be called a crime anymore, then what is done is perfectly fine within the context of mores, hence, rape is no longer rape if the society says it isn't. See, the inevitable problem?

What prevents those who do rape? Nothing prevents them, not even definitions from morality. While one might have a moral attitude, doesn't mean it is morality from a religion. It's merely a more, because society accepts the action as good or bad. Would you care for a society that leaves it's interpretation of what is a crime or not based on what your neighbors say?

Mob mentality dictates that the majority are going to agree what is a crime or not, lynching of blacks wasn't viewed as a crime by the people who did it nor by the people who supported them. You could say "they followed their moral conscience and justified it". No, they said it was not wrong based on the mores of their own culture groups. Do you see how it follows a natural pattern?

If you say

You don't need religion for moral justification of what you do

, then lynching of blacks was ultimately not wrong. If you say it is wrong, then as moral relativists like to say "whose morality is better?" So therefore, under this, the lynching of blacks shouldn't be viewed as a crime and if you say "Well, they were religious Christians", hold on a second, you are therefore quantifying and validating Christian morality by saying they were not living up to it.

You don't need moral justification means that you choose the mores of a culture group that you identify with, even if it is a subculture. That might work for you, but then you have to apply it to all of society and therefore, if someone thinks like you do and then steals your car, they have not broken your societal mores and taboos. They simply took your possession. Therefore, do you need moral justification to steal a car? You said "for whatever you do".

You must apply your definition broadly. That has to include those who are doing terrible things to you, and it can't be viewed as morally wrong or a crime if they do it to you. If you say morality then applies to them, but not you, then you have to prove that what they did was wrong from a non-moral view, because it is your definition in which you would demand justice from, not theirs.

So does it matter or not if a morality comes from a religion? If you say no, then even Christians who commit murder are not guilty, because it is your definition.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs

If, as a collective, we can agree that everyone does a reasonable part, then what's wrong with that?

Because your implication, and that of the source article, is that any Christian who does not support a liberal political agenda is not acting Christian -- it has nothing to do with "everyone doing a reasonable part." I generally vote conservative, not because I am -- I am reasonably centralist on most issues, leaning liberal on many -- but because my conscience does not allow me to support candidates who favour abortion on demand.

But my voting record has nothing to do with my approach to almsgiving and volunteering, and that, daily, is where my Christianity is reflected, not in a pointless poll taken every two years.

Bone75

luciddream
reply to post by Bone75

 

...without a belief in God (big G), I probably would have killed a whole lotta people by now....

That... is really troubling me right now...

The only difference between us is the foundation upon which our self control was built. I've always considered the voice of reason in my head as being from a divine source, whereas you attribute your's to social conditioning.

Of course we have evil thoughts, our control as you mention it, is in place for that. But where we get the control is that problem.

My control, social and personal experience is very real, even you have it, which you chose not to use.

If at some point in the future, if it were to be proven god is false and does not exist.

I will remain the same but you will be on a killing spree?

reply to post by adjensen


Okay, I understand then.

Did you happen to read the article about the conservative case for raising the minimum wage?
It addresses how social programs are subsidizing global corporations' employees, who aren't paid enough to live a decent life...

if the 'liberal agenda' was to focus on correcting that (and possibly to also cap income levels?) would that be something you'd support? I don't blame the religious for what's going on, I blame the system/economics..

Very sorry if I offended; I am well aware that Christians do a great deal to help others, and so do the non-religious or people of other faiths. Which is great. I worry most about the kids, and the cycle of poverty that stretches across generations.

Thanks for your point, I appreciate it. Perhaps we simply have to pick and choose which issues to fight for and support. Yours is abortion; mine is the poor and income inequality.

Fair enough?

adjensen
reply to post by BuzzyWigs

 

If, as a collective, we can agree that everyone does a reasonable part, then what's wrong with that?

Because your implication, and that of the source article, is that any Christian who does not support a liberal political agenda is not acting Christian -- it has nothing to do with "everyone doing a reasonable part." I generally vote conservative, not because I am -- I am reasonably centralist on most issues, leaning liberal on many -- but because my conscience does not allow me to support candidates who favour abortion on demand.

But my voting record has nothing to do with my approach to almsgiving and volunteering, and that, daily, is where my Christianity is reflected, not in a pointless poll taken every two years.

I just read the portion quoted.

As Christianity is concerned, it is a collective that agrees that everyone should do their reasonable part. So in essence, the idea is to change from one collective to another. We already have that, Islam is a collective, Judaism is a collective, college universities are a collective, Goth subcultures are a collective, the list goes on.

A collective mentality also leads to mob mentality. My side vs. your side. Even Liberalism is a collective mentality, hence the very fact that it has a label. Liberterian is a collective.

But overall, as we are also Americans, we have a collective mentality, meaning that we vote because it is part of our reasonable expectations and we do our part.

Christianity has already expected those who are Christian to follow the collective ideas, the same as any other groups expects theirs. But Christians, as any other group would, believe that there are fundamental flaws in the overall collective mentality of the larger group, America. That's the same ideas that the Democratic collective or the Republican collective also think.

Christians do expect Christians to do their reasonable part already.

reply to post by WarminIndy


Allow me to elaborate. First sticking to the op, no religion doesn't dictate our morals or give them to us.
I meant about where morals come from, I was saying that they are drilled into us throughout our life by both internal and external factors. Second the point I was making was that people don't need to always follow the morals their religion tells them to that's their choice and I voiced nothing more than an honest opinion of what I may have been thinking at the time.

Lastly don't take my words out of context and twist them. And I quote "then lynching of blacks was ultimately not wrong. If you say it is wrong, then as moral relativists like to say "whose morality is better?" So therefore, under this, the lynching of blacks shouldn't be viewed as a crime and if you say "Well, they were religious Christians", hold on a second, you are therefore quantifying and validating Christian morality by saying they were not living up to it."

I sure as hell wasn't saying go harm a bunch of people cause you feel like it. Now I admit I was broad there and perhaps my wording was a little off, and for that I will apologise. Now what I meant at the time was simply that a person won't have to justify what they've done for their religion. I'm talking of control through religion, control of what they deem morally acceptable. For example some religions don't allow abortions who are they to judge on what's right and wrong? If you do something wrong there are always consequences mind you however you in the end are the ones that choose what's morally acceptable.

reply to post by WarminIndy

While one might have a moral attitude, doesn't mean it is morality from a religion. It's merely a more, because society accepts the action as good or bad. Would you care for a society that leaves it's interpretation of what is a crime or not based on what your neighbors say?

This is an interesting perspective. What you call mores (customs taken as acceptable) are, in my understanding, different from established customs. For example, when one refuses to carry out a job duties on the grounds of strongly held but non-religious principles. Those principles for the person who holds them are adhered to regardless of the context (religious or secular), even if it goes against 'accepted standards' (for example, like reduced physical toil during a high-risk pregnancy, or allowing someone time off to care for their elderly parent or child without penalty); therefore, I see them as objective moral judgments.

The corporate world is particularly bad about exploiting people; for all the lip service about how a company's culture is described as holding high standards for family/work balance and quality of life, or open-door policies of everyone having a voice, when it affects the bottom line it is often disregarded. The 'culture as expressed' is not always backed up with real-world, case by case support of those very tenets.

I wish I were as astute at philosophy as lots of you members are. In the end, I know what I feel is right and wrong, and the customs of a place be damned; I will stick to my principles even in the face of opposition. I could give examples, but I hope you get my point. Don't want to type out a wall of text; I have to go run some errands this morning (including application for a part-time job to help with rising food costs)...

BuzzyWigs
reply to post by adjensen

 

Okay, I understand then.

Did you happen to read the article about the conservative case for raising the minimum wage?
It addresses how social programs are subsidizing global corporations' employees, who aren't paid enough to live a decent life...

if the 'liberal agenda' was to focus on correcting that (and possibly to also cap income levels?) would that be something you'd support? I don't blame the religious for what's going on, I blame the system/economics..

Very sorry if I offended; I am well aware that Christians do a great deal to help others, and so do the non-religious or people of other faiths. Which is great. I worry most about the kids, and the cycle of poverty that stretches across generations.

Thanks for your point, I appreciate it. Perhaps we simply have to pick and choose which issues to fight for and support. Yours is abortion; mine is the poor and income inequality.

Fair enough?

I think this way, it doesn't matter how high minimum wage goes, prices will go up. You have to compensate those higher wages with price increases. So it doesn't ultimately change anything or make anyone's life better, it simply means that higher wages lead also to higher taxes.

The poor and income inequality will never change because there are many reasons for why there is such a disparity. Look at house rent in the different areas of the country. In Manhattan, someone might pay $2,000 a month for a two-room apartment, but in St. Louis, that same apartment might be $800 a month. So the wages are higher in Manhattan, but it doesn't make it any less easier for the person struggling to pay rent and eat at the same time.

The media shows us that people in Manhattan makes this huge living wage and therefore their lives seem so much better, it isn't the case, most are struggling to pay massive student loans. Struggle is struggle, no matter where it is. And in California, the standard of living and the poverty level are much higher than Ohio. Why is this? The poverty level in California, that determines how little money you earn to qualify you at the poverty level, is almost 3 times higher than Ohio.

A lady I know who works at a national brand convenience store just told me that her work day is ten hours, eight days in a row, then three off, but she gets paid double overtime for holidays that she must work. Sometimes she brings home a fairly decent paycheck, but more taxes have been taken out. This is true for married couples who have double income, they pay the marriage penalty tax. So raising wages doesn't lead to a better life, merely more taxes to cover sundry costs, like Police, Fire, military, government wages, Michelle Obama to fly to China, Social Security, welfare in ghettos, food stamps, all from taxes.

How do we solve this problem? First, let's stop giving checks to people who are able to work, stop taxing to death those who are already struggling, create jobs in this country and stop encouraging people to have many babies that they aren't financially capable of taking care of. I know some ladies right now who work ten hours a week, have five children and not married to the fathers because to be married means they will no longer receive food stamps, and then expect at tax time to claim their children for Earned Income Credit, in other words, these ladies who have worked ten hours a week, have now gotten a check for $12,000 at tax time. But their food stamps came from the taxes paid by those who are working 40, 50 and 80 hours a week. See the income and wage disparity?

blueyezblkdragon
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

Allow me to elaborate. First sticking to the op, no religion doesn't dictate our morals or give them to us.
I meant about where morals come from, I was saying that they are drilled into us throughout our life by both internal and external factors. Second the point I was making was that people don't need to always follow the morals their religion tells them to that's their choice and I voiced nothing more than an honest opinion of what I may have been thinking at the time.

Lastly don't take my words out of context and twist them. And I quote "then lynching of blacks was ultimately not wrong. If you say it is wrong, then as moral relativists like to say "whose morality is better?" So therefore, under this, the lynching of blacks shouldn't be viewed as a crime and if you say "Well, they were religious Christians", hold on a second, you are therefore quantifying and validating Christian morality by saying they were not living up to it."

I sure as hell wasn't saying go harm a bunch of people cause you feel like it. Now I admit I was broad there and perhaps my wording was a little off, and for that I will apologise. Now what I meant at the time was simply that a person won't have to justify what they've done for their religion. I'm talking of control through religion, control of what they deem morally acceptable. For example some religions don't allow abortions who are they to judge on what's right and wrong? If you do something wrong there are always consequences mind you however you in the end are the ones that choose what's morally acceptable.

This is the very argument I explained to you from your side

For example some religions don't allow abortions who are they to judge on what's right and wrong? If you do something wrong there are always consequences mind you however you in the end are the ones that choose what's morally acceptable.

OK, then tell us, what is right or wrong? If you say "they judge and it's wrong", but aren't you dictating what is right or wrong and judging actions by that?

Why should there be consequences? Explain from a non-moral position, why there should be consequences. What is morally acceptable without a standard of morality?

This is what you are going to have to formulate, that if something is wrong, then who are you to judge why it is wrong? What is morally acceptable to you? And if it is morally acceptable to you, then aren't you judging those who don't have the same ideas of what is morally acceptable to them?

So how can it be wrong and why should there be consequences if we ignore your definition of what is morally acceptable to you?

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Good luck.

That is sincere and not sarcasm on my part.

reply to post by BuzzyWigs

Did you happen to read the article about the conservative case for raising the minimum wage?
It addresses how social programs are subsidizing global corporations' employees, who aren't paid enough to live a decent life…

The minimum wage is an economic issue, not a political one, and when I read that article, what I saw was a lot of political arguments, while demonstrating ignorance of the economic ones. If you give everyone a million dollars, all you're going to do is force the price of bread to rise to $10,000 a loaf.

Poverty is a real issue, one which needs to be addressed, but it is not best addressed by the government manipulating the economy in its usual ham-fisted, myopic and partisan approach.

adjensen
reply to post by BuzzyWigs

 

Did you happen to read the article about the conservative case for raising the minimum wage?
It addresses how social programs are subsidizing global corporations' employees, who aren't paid enough to live a decent life…

The minimum wage is an economic issue, not a political one, and when I read that article, what I saw was a lot of political arguments, while demonstrating ignorance of the economic ones. If you give everyone a million dollars, all you're going to do is force the price of bread to rise to $10,000 a loaf.

Poverty is a real issue, one which needs to be addressed, but it is not best addressed by the government manipulating the economy in its usual ham-fisted, myopic and partisan approach.

That is so true.

See how much in the last 20 years the rise in gas prices? In 1996, I had a great job, was paid $9.38/hr and gas prices were at $2.20, now it is a dollar higher, but that dollar is not paying for more, but for less.

Not everyone makes that much now, but at that time I definitely was solid middle-class, two cars, a mortgage and cute little dog. The company I worked for shut down, moved to Singapore and the area I lived in went through a local recession. Today it hasn't recovered, put onto it the national recession and depression.

So the highest minimum wage in this area of Ohio was the standard minimum wage, but it didn't prevent the rising rent, food or gas prices. But this was a small city in Ohio, and yet those who were working were paying the taxes for the food stamps of those living in Cleveland, Columbus and Cincinnati. Wage disparity and income, look at middle America. Those who are working the most, paid the least and money taken from them to give to those who are working the least, spending the most.