Chuch/State unity

[BigGunner]

Its a generic question. But it applies to some politicians view that perhaps that gays be outlawed again, or a legislative ban on gay marriage, to name a few.

[August1991]

The State cannot legislate morality. Because an action is legal, this does not mean the action is moral, or that the State encourages the action. It simply means the action is legal. That's all.

Many adults may not be able to solve simple math problems but most can solve wisely in their own way complex moral problems. We each have our own moral compass that rarely changes direction.

So, when deciding to enact a law forbidding an action, the first question (and main criteria) should be whether the State can in fact enforce the law. The world is filled with laws and regulations that mean absolutely nothing beyond the egotism of the politicians who created them. It is easier to pass a law than it is to enforce it.

IOW, what we call "criminal" activity should be a question of what is enforceable.

Consider abortion. Quite apart from one's personal view, consider a law forbidding abortion. It is simply unenforceable. The consequences of such a law would bring more pain and death than the current tacit freedom. (I say tacit because in fact there are no abortions in PEI; only two doctors in NB perform them.)

When it comes to a third party judging human relations, pragmatism is often the civilized way.

[willy]

Your poll is worded such that any answer I give would not reflect what I believe. (yes or no to your questions)

Answer to the Poll:

I believe in God, so I must accept his superiority. If not he would not be God.

My faith is built and understood from a Christian perspective. This has an impact on how I view the world and why I think people do what they do.

Government, governs and thus if I were involved in setting laws the previous things would impact my opinions.

That being said, I believe it is consistent within the Christian religion that one can not legislate morality. We have the choice to follow God or find our own way. Within our society I believe we should protect the ability to make that choice.

Where not legislating morality becomes difficult is when one person’s immorality affects others.

Pimps, recruit prostitutes. These young women are then exploited with drugs and violence. We may not be able to eradicate prostitution but making it legal would condone the abuse of these young women.

Abortion is very tough. When is a fetus a baby? I don’t know, but I do know that it is a negative thing when someone has to go through the process of abortion.

It needs to be a negative thing. In the feminist world if we support it and celebrate it then women won’t feel shame. This is lunacy as anyone who has an abortion will think about it every day of their life. Options, abstinence and caring support would all be preferential to abortion. These things need to be promoted and supported more than pro choice. Prevent as many needs to make the choice and we are all better off. Should the choice be available, maybe but restrictions are necessary.

There are two contentious issues that my faith does impact. I could however be secular and hold these same opinions for different reasons. My faith guides may ethics, what guides yours?

[mack]

Religions atre based on superstition, and have no place in the lives of thinking people.

And there are so many religions, all with different "gods." Since they all disagree, only one, or none, is correct. Instead of bringing humanity together, religions tear us apart.

[playfullfellow]

Religions atre based on superstition, and have no place in the lives of thinking people.

Sorry, but I have to disagree with this sentiment. Religion is not based on superstition but rather belief and tradition. Superstition is when you believe you will have 7 years bad luck if you break a mirror. Religion is also passed down from one generation to another, just like many of your family traditions. Religion is a persons belief in something which guides their lifestyle, this is no different than any athiest who believes in letting laws guide their lives.

[SirRiff]

religion is intrinsicly inflexable, exclusive, and discriminatory. thast fine. its an ideology and individuals have a right to believe nad live however they want.

democratic government however generally requires flexible, inclusive, and shifting policies based on real observable, rational stimulus.

the two are mutually exclusive.

i have said it before, religion in the past was simply just a vehicle of morality that helped to stabolize societys power structure. its no longer needed for that purpose. it is helpfull however to transfer traditional values through generations.

goverments however dont need a static written description hundreds of years old to investiage and respond to its citiziens concerns.

in short, our society had advanced to the point where groups of goverment can assess and respons to citizens needs. no prepacked ideologies are needed.

sirriff

[willy]

goverments however dont need a static written description hundreds of years old to investiage and respond to its citiziens concerns.

in short, our society had advanced to the point where groups of goverment can assess and respons to citizens needs. no prepacked ideologies are needed

What evidence do you have of this occurring? Here is a list of the opposite of moral progress.

Government Scandals

Police abuse power

Soldiers abuse power

Judicial abuse (a judge in BC yesterday pled guilty to raping teen age girls)

Poverty

Murders

Disease

Turn off the start trek and walk in a downtown center. I have volunteered in the downtown east side of Vancouver and if that is the result of the progress you talk of, I want none of it.

I must interpret your premise to mean we don't need God because we can control our own destiny. So when you start with a premise like that I just have to ask one question who will live forever.

My two favorite cultural fibs are:

We are more progressed than ever before, and

It just isn’t like when I was growing up and the streets were safe.

People need guidance. While a person may do great things, that same person can do the opposite.

[Black Dog]

Our democratic society is based around the principles of personal freedom. If someone believes in an Invisible Superhero Sky Pixie, they have the freedom to do so, no matter how ridiculous such a concept may be. However, that belief simply has no place in public policy.

I'm tired of religious types cramming their lifestyle down my throat.

The "evils" of modern secular society that willy describes ar enot new, but have existed as long as mankind. Indeed, the argument can be made that the continued existence of such evil in the world is the surest sign that there is no God (as Mark Twain said: "If God exists, then He is a malignant thug."). Religion is not the cure, but another disease.

[Alliance Fanatic]

No offense Black Dog, but most left wingers believe that they should have the right to cram morality down people's throats. This can be seen in the Alberta case were a pub owner asked a same sex couple to stop fondling each other. So if you believe in personal freedom so much, than you must respect freedom of religion, and freedom of expression.

[willy]

I'm tired of religious types cramming their lifestyle down my throat.

This area of the forum is called Religion and Politics. If you don't want to read about God, you should not read these posts.

My point BD was that society has not changed, and not that we are any worse or better.

If someone believes in an Invisible Superhero Sky Pixie, they have the freedom to do so, no matter how ridiculous such a concept may be. However, that belief simply has no place in public policy

Sorry but atheists don't get a monopoly on public policy. I don't think you can legislate morality or faith but if you do believe in God it will effect how one governs.

I am sick of being told that my free speech is less valuable because you don't agree.

When you can fix the world, just let me know why you botherd?

What is the point? individual happiness, self acualization, less pain, more power, equality. How and for what?

Rich people take drugs, poor people starve, and powerful people abuse that power. Removing things that explore why the human condition can not be better? Social conflict theory is naive to say the least; it does not get at why we do the things we do to each other. And if we were all kind and shared would that make us happy?

And back to the point, is happiness what our society strives for? Or is it equality for equality sack, freedom for freedom sack, wealthy for wealthy sack. What is it and does it stand to reason?

[Black Dog]

This area of the forum is called Religion and Politics. If you don't want to read about God, you should not read these posts.

I was being sarcastic.

Sorry but atheists don't get a monopoly on public policy.

And nor do religious types have the monopoly on morality. That was my main point.

[udawg]

i have said it before, religion in the past was simply just a vehicle of morality that helped to stabolize societys power structure. its no longer needed for that purpose. it is helpfull however to transfer traditional values through generations.

Anybody here read Foundation by Isaac Asimov? He suggests that civilization, as it were, goes through various phases, where different groups are the important/controlling sectors. Early on, it's religion, then later trade, and to continue the civilization, it must adapt.

Perhaps we are reaching that point in our own civilization where we no longer need religion as the "vehicle of morality" or "stabilizer of society".

[willy]

udawg, Is their a God? If their is a God, he may have created religion to reveal himself to us.

If their is not a God, you are right their is no need for religion. In fact without a God what is this evolved society that you are trying to create for? Should we not just find anyway possible to party on?

The God you mentioned above is that of utilitarianism. The principle of utilitarianism states that all things should be organized in such a way as to ensure the maximum happiness for the greatest number. Knowing this one does not need religion but a good justice system. Criminal acts detract from the collective happiness and therefore should be prevented. Many variations of this theory evolved and are acted on today. Utilitarianism is not a metaphysic. Social theory has made for thought provoking philosophy and a complex justification for educating people into conformity and punishing only things determined to affect others negatively.

With the theory you put forward (underlining premise to your statement) the only reason for God and religion to exist would be social conformity. All the modern social theories look to maximize the functioning society and seek a social balance. Constraint theory, Status Frustration, Structural Functionalism, are all social explanations used today in whole or part by people to explain away social problems. None of these theories provides an adequate explanation of why we still have pain and suffering. The problem is they are all based on the same utilitarianism model. Human behaviour as it turns out is more complex than simple hedonism.

What if the world is fallen and we have a sin problem. The answerer to social problems would not be equality, conformity, education, wealth but rather something as simple as a relationship and dependence on God. The only thing that would show us how to accomplish this is religion. This might take a little faith as one would have to believe God inspired religion to accomplish this task. A comforting notion is that all human explanations that have attempted to fix our societies have been based around this insufficiency or out of balance approach and that would suggest an omnipotent design to the world that was describe in the bible. Our world is fallen as described in the bible and this lack of social cohesion can adequately be explained by biblical theology. No other philosopher has come close but their philosophies do influence our laws, judicial systems, and education.

What is your premise when you think about what is good for you and your community?

[DAC]

Black Dog wrote

I'm tired of religious types cramming their lifestyle down my throat.

I'm tired of anti-"religion" types cramming their liestyle down my throat.

Reality is that you have your own, call it "religious view", since from your perspective it isn't religion (from mine it is). It shapes your thinking and action, just as mine shapes mine. The assumption of superiority of yours is a faith claim. The idea that there is no god has no evidence whatsoever to support it.

You seek to promote your own ideas, by denying others the right to do the same thing. That's sad..

[DAC]

SirRiff wrote

religion is intrinsicly inflexable, exclusive, and discriminatory. thast fine. its an ideology and individuals have a right to believe nad live however they want. democratic government however generally requires flexible, inclusive, and shifting policies based on real observable, rational stimulus.

the two are mutually exclusive.

Actually, in the last century we have examples of governments by those who rejected religion. Nobody I have noticed suggested that the Soviet Union, Communist China, North Vietnam, Cambodia were flexible or inclusive or non-discriminatory.

The interesting thing is that nondiscriminatory tolerant outlooks have developed only where Christian teaching has heavily influenced government, directly or indirectly.

[August1991]

The interesting thing is that nondiscriminatory tolerant outlooks have developed only where Christian teaching has heavily influenced government, directly or indirectly.

Russia and Germany were both Christian countries and both went through recent periods of terrible intolerance. And what about slavery? Who was doing the buying?

On the other hand, India is a large, primarily Hindu country that achieves a remarkable degree of tolerance despite its poverty.

I'm tired of religious types cramming their lifestyle down my throat.

I'm tired of anti-"religion" types cramming their liestyle down my throat.

I'm tired of people cramming - or claiming to cram - anything down anybody's throat.

[DAC]

Should the government have the right to enfoce a viewpoint based on a religious philosophy?

The government cannot avoid basing laws on a religious viewpoint. It may be the religious viewpoint of expediency. It may be the left wing viewpoint that free expression should be limited to those things approved by the intelligentsia. It may be the materialist viewpoint that this world is just an accident so unproductive people such as unborn children or those who are old and sick have no value. It may be the view of a Christian or Muslim or Jew based on the teaching of their holy book. But every choice we make is based at some point on a religious viewpoint.

The real question is “In what areas is it appropriate for the state to make laws?” That is still going to leave us with disagreements based on religious views. But at least we are not imagining the ability to set aside our fundamental beliefs in the choices we make.

[August1991]

But every choice we make is based at some point on a religious viewpoint.

I think you mean that every choice we make is based on some value system or ethical ordering. If you want to call that "religion", I have no objection.

The government cannot avoid basing laws on a religious viewpoint.

Now I think I understand your idea.

It may be the materialist viewpoint that this world is just an accident so unproductive people such as unborn children or those who are old and sick have no value.

I don't think that's the "materialist" viewpoint at all. It's not a question of how useful someone is. (An unborn child could grow into being another Einstein.)

Rather, two consenting an adults should be allowed to do whatever they want as long as it doesn't harm a third person.

[DAC]

I'm tired of people cramming - or claiming to cram - anything down anybody's throat.

Right on! Persuasion but no compulsion.

Russia and Germany were both Christian countries and both went through recent periods of terrible intolerance. And what about slavery? Who was doing the buying?

Christianity does not work through compulsion, though there have been times when misguided types tried that, but through example and persuasion. In both Russian and Germany the church drifted badly from the Bible (as much of it has here more recently), and so was rejected. The result was the intolerance you mentioned.

Slavery? It took 18 centuries after Christ for the Bible's teaching to gradually penetrate our understanding. But so far as I know, nobody else's teaching opposes it at all, except where Judaeo-Christian influence has been felt.

India is a large, primarily Hindu country that achieves a remarkable degree of tolerance despite its poverty.

First time I heard of the caste system being considered tolerant. You should also read the persecution web sites before speaking of Hindu tolerance. Hinduism is only tolerant of views that agree that Hinduism is fine and good.

[DAC]

It may be the materialist viewpoint that this world is just an accident so unproductive people such as unborn children or those who are old and sick have no value.

I don't think that's the "materialist" viewpoint at all. It's not a question of how useful someone is. (An unborn child could grow into being another Einstein.)

What you're saying is that an unborn child has value because of it is potentially useful. That's the best that come come from a truly materialist base. Everything is ultimately an accident, so it has no inherent value.

That's far different from the Christian viewpoint that everybody is inherently valuable because deliberately made by God in his image.

People have said that Stockwell Day was scary because he believed that the world was only made 6,000 years ago. I think that (however mistaken) is far less scary than someone who has no commitment which compels him to consider every individual valuable.

[CanadianPatriot]

Our country was founded on Christian beliefs. Why should politicians not be allowed to base decisions on Biblical morality? I believe the problem with many countries today, including our own, is that we have strayed from strict moral beliefs. There is no longer a clear line seperating ´´right´´ from ´´wrong´´. The line has been continually glazed over leaving it as one big grey area. I believe a country ruled by the guidelines set down by the Bible would be much better off. At least then we would have a strict scale by which we could measure decisions made. We were founded on these beliefs and it worked well at getting our country started, why wouldn´t it work now?

[Black Dog]

Why should politicians not be allowed to base decisions on Biblical morality?

Because not every citizen follows the Bible.

I believe the problem with many countries today, including our own, is that we have strayed from strict moral beliefs.

Again, religious types don't have the monopoly on morality.

We were founded on these beliefs and it worked well at getting our country started, why wouldn´t it work now?

Times change. Canada is now a multicultural, multitheistic society and the government must reflect that.

[willy]

Times change. Canada is now a multicultural, multitheistic society and the government must reflect that.

BD what do you mean by this? What does this look like in practical application? Sometimes, I don't think these concepts need to be exclusive. One can base decisions on a faith background but this does not make it exclusive of others (cultural, gender, or ideology). Example: thou shall not Murder would be a universal give me.

As for CanadianPatriot, Christianity is base around choice and accepting Gods call. This is not something that can be legislated. We can work to have the right to practice our faith and should share our faith (in fact Jesus calls us to do that).

You can not force morality. In a Christian context, it comes from God and not by our efforts. Legalism comes from state expressed Christianity and this is just as bad as complete relativity. The change component of our faith should take place in our churches, communities and with our personal relationships with God and our neighbors.

We should look at specific applications (policy and laws) and then evaluate the roll our personal beliefs can appropriately be generalized to help our communities.

BD I have to disagree with you about the “who owns morality” thing. (no surprise) With no God, what determines right or wrong. Note I am not arguing that religious people are anymore likely to keep these moral codes, or let’s call them ethics. They are basing morality on more than a personal concept of right and wrong. We have a revelation that validates what these codes are. The Big Ten is a good place to start. This is important distinction as logically with no creator the only purpose for right and wrong is what utilitarianism. What emptiness and lack of purpose.

[DAC]

Why should politicians not be allowed to base decisions on Biblical morality?

Because not every citizen follows the Bible.

Black Dog, that's an argument for no decisions by politicians. There is no basis for decisions which every citizen accepts and follows. If the fact that not every citizen follows its basis means a decision should not be made, close down parliament.

Unless you are prepared to argue that some citizens are second class, their views cannot be considered???

[August1991]

I believe the problem with many countries today, including our own, is that we have strayed from strict moral beliefs. There is no longer a clear line seperating ´´right´´ from ´´wrong´´.

Do you really believe people were more moral in the past? Or that moral questions were easier in the past?

First time I heard of the caste system being considered tolerant. You should also read the persecution web sites before speaking of Hindu tolerance. Hinduism is only tolerant of views that agree that Hinduism is fine and good.

I think Hinduism is more tolerant than the Spanish Inquisition was. But I guess you'd disagree somehow. (Have you read 'The Name of the Rose'?)

So, I could have given the example of Thailand. But then I suppose you'd mention Cambodia. And then I'd have to go back to my German example (or Poland to pick another example).

People kill each other for many reasons. No group has a monopoly on tolerance. I'm inclined to believe that religions contribute more to intolerance and violence than they prevent it.

In both Russian and Germany the church drifted badly from the Bible (as much of it has here more recently), and so was rejected.

What, in God's name, gives you the right to say whether someone is a "good" Christian or a "bad" Christian? Are you the Pope?

What you're saying is that an unborn child has value because of it is potentially useful. That's the best that come come from a truly materialist base. Everything is ultimately an accident, so it has no inherent value.

On the contrary, I'm saying nothing of the sort.

On abortion, if the State tries to forbid it, the State will create even greater havoc, more death and more immorality as people seek ways around the interdiction. (Have you read 'The Cider House Rules'?)

The perfect is the enemy of the good. We live in a practical world with real people.