Non religious people, are the ones that legislate morals.

For some reason, this has never occurred to me. The secularists and the non religious are the ones that legislate the most moral laws. Think about it, they legislate redistribution. They legislate moral safety nets. They legislate guilt and moralistic legislation everytime you turn around.

Look at the health care legislation passed in the US. Please tell me that this is NOT moralistic in its entirety. They use guilt to make you think that it is you moral obligation to help people you do not even know. They pass redistribution legislation that is moralistic in nature.

They then tell you they are doing it for what? Non moralistic endeavors?

Talk about Cognitive Dissonance!

I dont ge it.
So if you are non believer you cant be moral?
It´s wrong for believer to help some people he dont even know?

So are you saying that believers dont have moral or they are only one with moral?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


They don't need a law for that. It's a common decency rule to help people you don't even know..... It's called being Human.... Unless of course you are scared for your own meaningless life.

Both respondents so far are not getting my meaning.

Think about it, how many times have you been told that the religious folk are going to go back to some religious theocracy? Tell me, when was the last time that a religious law has become law?

Then I ask you, how many times has the liberal progressives asked you to think about the guilt you should feel about this and that to pass a law?

Well?

Who actually wants to legislate your morals, the religious or the progressives?

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


" Who actually wants to legislate your morals, the religious or the progressives?"
From my past experiences and observances, both want to.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower
Saltheart Foamfollower,

What's happened to America? Who gave her away to foreign interests? Who gave away the jobs? I could go on, sigh, but will not go no further.

Only the Truth will set free and also will iron out the wrinkles.

Truthiron

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
Both respondents so far are not getting my meaning.

Think about it, how many times have you been told that the religious folk are going to go back to some religious theocracy? Tell me, when was the last time that a religious law has become law?

Then I ask you, how many times has the liberal progressives asked you to think about the guilt you should feel about this and that to pass a law?

Well?

Who actually wants to legislate your morals, the religious or the progressives?

Abortion is a law based on morals, bible based.

Marriage, religion based.

Some adoption laws, religious moral based.

Death penalty directly based on the bible's rule eye for an eye.

That is off the top of my head.

The main difference between "legislated morality" and "mandated charity" are huge. Legeslated charity seeks to force one group to support another on the pretext that doing so is moral. The truth is that truly moral people would be helping already. Laws that require charity presuppose that without those laws, then the charity would not occur, thus assuming that average pople ar immoral or amoral.

On the other hand, "legislated morality" seeks to impose a specific moral outlook on society as a whole. A good example of this is recent laws against homosexual marriage, a specific religious viewpoint.

reply to post by saltheart foamfollower


Who put "Under God" in the pledge of allegiance?

Truman was a progressive?

www.kofc.org...

Actually, it was Eisenhower who pushed for the "under god" addition in 1954.

Under God

Morals, are they to be legislated?

A true Christian will tell you what I am going to tell you now, that is heresy.

If you actually believe, that you can make people moral by forcing them, the Christian faith would be legislating punishment for thought crimes.

Hmmm, who is doing that?

I love the sinner but hate the sin. There is NO such thing as salvation through compulsion. If anyone actually told me that is a Christian tenet, I would have to ask them about Jesus forgiving those that transgressed against the Lord.

Life is a choice, period.

Believe in this or that, do as you will. But a choice is made in every action, every decision one makes.

I say use the Libertarian ideology. You have the choice of your convictions. Why should anyone, let alone the government make your choices for you?

That is why I have become a Libertarian, CHOICE. You have the choice to do good works or bad. They will not protect your soul, but the path will provide you the choice to become or not.

Let EVERYONE make their own choice I say.

Originally posted by soontide
Actually, it was Eisenhower who pushed for the "under god" addition in 1954.

Under God

I stand corrected. Thanks!

Eisenhower was a progressive?

You are correct. Eisenhower was not a progressive. Progressives don't legislate religion, they tend to legislate charity instead of morality. The conservatives are the ones that legislate morality.

Progressive ideas: Everyone should pay for the living expenses of the poor through taxation because only government can take care of them.

Conservative ideas: Government should make moral trespasses illegal because it's easier than actually convincing people to do the right thing.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
A true Christian will tell you what I am going to tell you now, that is heresy.

unless a so called "christian" is treating everyone identically and treating everyone the same way, they are not a christian.

What is a "True Christian"? There is no such thing.

jesus said: "do unto to others that which you would have done unto you"
and "treat thy neighbor as you wish to be treated"
in other words "treat others the way you like to be treated".

is jesus a liar? seems to me all christians do not like to be treated the exact same way. not everyone likes to be treated or even talked to the same way. not everybody likes to be treated the way i like to be treated sometimes. am i still a christian? maybe.

not agreeing with eachother is conceding that other people do not like to be treated the same way, and be agreeing. so saying other people should not always agree, is the same as conceding that people should not be treated the same way. the opposite of christ's teachings of treating people the same. and christians usually have no intentions of conflict resolution, no acceptance to engage in discussing this paradox. i'm just noting that what christians' christ taught is not what christians practice, always.

christ teaches: do unto others as you would have done unto you, yet some christians refuse to treat everyone identically and the same way. If a person's actions and behaviors are not compliant with treating everyone identically and the same way, then they are in effect performing anti-christ's actions and behaviors.

Originally posted by saltheart foamfollower
A true Christian will tell you what I am going to tell you now, that is heresy.

unless a so called "christian" is treating everyone identically and treating everyone the same way, they are not a christian.

What is a "True Christian"? There is no such thing. do you, christian, treat everyone the same way?
this is a trademark of being christian, isn't it?

reply to post by Esoteric Teacher




Oh well, I guess I might just as well get it out there. I am not the perfect Christian, I hate everyone. That must be my ingrained attitude. I attempt to limit my contempt for people, I really do. I usually let my contempt show. That is my sin-hypocrisy

I am very bad at judging others. Cast the first stone and the hypocrisy sin.

A true Christian, that you called me out on, is the truth and you are right in calling me out. I should not judge, I am not worthy.

Ahhh, what you bring up is not Christian, that is you interpretation of it. Any true Christian, which I am not, would admit that their is only the attempt to become Christian, more like Jesus. We cannot become him or even emulate him. We can only strive to be like him. He died for our shortcomings, for our sins.

I only wish I could be 1/∞ that he is.

Oh well, we all become one, sooner or later.