It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I have no problem with people living their religions.
It's of people insisting that their interpretation is right and others' are wrong.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Now, I'm not trying to be argumentative; I'm serious. Don't most people who have a creed believe that "they are right" and that other people are wrong where their opinions differ?
Isn't that just human nature?
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
or that their religion is the best one or that the morals of their religion need to be applied to everyone, including me.
I think most people, of most religions, or even members of specific cultures, feel that way.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Or what about the ATSNN post about the UN asking for help in stamping out "child sacrifice and female 'circumcision'" in central Africa? Aren't we passing judgment on others when we take a stand like that. Is it OK for the UN to do it on governmental grounds, but immoral for me to oppose child sacrifice and genital mutilation on religious grounds?
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
On the one hand, a lot of people feel (I think maybe you feel this way), that religious people have no business imposing their world-view on others.
And yet, our culture does this constantly for non-religious reasons every day, for instance the example from the UN I just gave.
From a religous person's viewpoint, it almost seems like any reason for imposing values is ok, so long as it's not religious.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
If I say, the US should help stamp out child sacrifice because it is heartless and cruel, then that is considered acceptable. But if I say that the US should help end this practice because my belief in God tells me it is wicked, then somehow my logic has just become prejudice and "fanaticism."
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And I'm not trying to make this a political thread either. But I think a lot of Americans have rallied to one party, not because they agree with it, but because it tells them that their religious beliefs are as valuable as anyone else's. Sure, there are a lot of posturing idiots who are holding the microphones. But the reason that religious people are tuning in, in my opinion, is because someone is willing to take their faith seriously.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
I'll give you a less loaded example concerning the bias against religion. If you take a high school or college history class anywhere in western civilization, you will surely hear that the "real" motives for the crusades were lust for booty, land, rape and pillage, economic advantage, power for the church, etc. But mainstream professors will never discuss the fact that for many of the Christians (and Muslims, for that matter) who went off to almost certain death on the battlefield, religion was the overwhelming motive.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
But I think that our society refuses to admit that religion is a motivating force in the everyday decisions of people around the world.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Just because you think something is 'wrong' doesn't mean you have to set about to change everyone to your way of thinking or behaving.
[edit on 2-10-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Were John Brown, and other abolitionists, forcing their views on the South? Were they justified?
Eveyone who EVER tries to boss his neighbors feels like he has the moral high ground:
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I find that, oh... roughly 100% of the time, in cases like this, we can refer to law instead of religion. And more specifically, the the Constitution and/or the Declaration of Independence, which states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal...
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
www.ushistory.org...
(emphasis added by Dr. S.
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them . .
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. . . .
We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare . . .
--And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
It's ironic that, when they were writing our founding documents, the framers refered to religion instead of law as the ultimate source for their republic.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Yes, they did look to their religion. And they made sure that we wouldn't have to. Thet even if we weren't religious, we could look to the law to know what is fair and just in this country.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Some of us don't feel that looking to religion as a moral guide is some kind of a burden. You say "and they made sure that we wouldn't have to." As if it were a distasteful task to consider religious principles;
or at least like it isn't the preferred mode of existence.
Why was it OK for the first generation of Americans to be guided by religious principles, but somehow it is no longer appropriate to do so?
What did the rest of us do wrong, so that it's no longer lauditory to act or vote based upon religious conviction?
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And the trouble with relativism is that you are never in a position morally to "correct" anyone else: A relativist can never really say that an absolutist is wrong, since absolutism might be "right" for him..
Consternation though it is, moral relativists cannot really be in the position of saying that an absolutist is wrong, without slipping into moral absolutism:
"I think it's all relative, except for you Christians, who are definitely always wrong!"
On the other hand, an absolutist can logically critique a relativist, because the absolutist's logical categories include the possibility that only some people are wrong.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
But when you're talking about some of the other beliefs that people fight over every day, homosexuality, religion, recreational drug use, abortion, politics, there's clearly no universal right or wrong. If there was. we'd all agree on it.
. . . there's clearly no universal right or wrong. If there was. we'd all agree on it.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Do you really believe that ALL humans have an equal capacity for perceiving right and wrong?
So, slavery wasn't wrong until we all reached agreement about it?? Those first abolitionists, who protested slavery and tried to help runaway slaves, they were against something that wasn't even "wrong" yet? How horrible of them to boss those nice southerners around, telling them what to do with their own slaves!
See, we have a fundamental difference in our outlook. I guess further conversation is pointless. I'm pig-headed enough to believe that some things are wrong, regardless of how many people agree with me. And other things are right in and of themselves, without needing to take an opinion poll to see if my opinions are popular.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
For example, child molestation, in my mind, is wrong. If I knew about someone who was molesting a child, I would take whatever action I could to make it stop. There are some universal 'wrongs' that 99% of the people agree on.
But when you're talking about some of the other beliefs that people fight over every day, homosexuality, religion, recreational drug use, abortion, politics, there's clearly no universal right or wrong. If there was. we'd all agree on it. There's right for you and right for me. Which all works out fine until we start telling the other what should be right for them.
Originally posted by AkashicWanderer
When you take action about a child being molested by inhibiting the molester's free will, you are in fact forcing your moral beliefs on another human being.
The number of people who follow a belief structure, is not in direct correlation to its moral superiority.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Why are Christians more "judgmental" than other people? ... Of course reaching a conclusion either way makes you judgmental about them, doesn't it?
Why don't more Christians live that out?
Because they (we) are sinners, I guess. I dunno. What's your judgment of the issue?
I see another question that goes unanswered. Maybe you can help me with it:
"Why do liberal preach inclusiveness and tolerance; but that tolerance is never extended to Christians or conservatives generally?"
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
One of the pitfalls of liberalism is its inability to differentiate between good and evil effectively.
Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
But again, nobody is ever "really" wrong in the liberal world-view.
Except Christian. And republicans. And the US government. and anyone else who might actually try to do something about evil and suffering in the world.