Pope Frantic

[geoffrey]

While I don't really care too much about SSM, I think that putting more faith in a piece of paper than objective reasoning is a rather dangerous road to travel down.

Where is the objective reasoning in denying GM?

There isn't much, hence why I don't really protest it much.

[BC_chick]

tml,

Can you ridicule something which Jack Layton says without lashing out and looking down at every person who votes NDP?

I'm pretty sure you can.

Likewise, I was not "lashing out" against the pope and the entire Roman Catholic Church - but rather, this particular argument put forth by the Pope with which I strongly disagree.

Nonetheless, I'm sorry if I offended you.

[BC_chick]

Moral relativisim = believing that most things are a shade of gray, and very few things are black or white

Exclusiveness = believing that people are people no matter what colour skin they have, what God they believe, or what gender they sleep with

Hardly - but your definitions leave a lot to be desired:

Moral relativism is associated with a thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons.

Exclusiveness is the opposite of your definition; selectiveness and restrictiveness are synonyms. You may mean inclusiveness.

Moral relativism is used as a club against those one disagrees with - it is rare for anyone to claim moral relativism.

The Church as guardian of Christian morality is hardly open to moral relativism; one cannot sin a little bit. If you sleep with your neighbour's wife or daughter, it is hardly relevant that he somehow wronged you in the past. You are not only morally wrong, you have brought innocent people into a quarrel they had no part in.

Cultures that allow wife-beating exist but their existence does not make their behaviour morally correct. I do not have to accept that cruelty to another person is allowed or to be condoned no matter what justification they may put forward.

You're absolutely correct about my incorrect use of exclusiveness, I'm surprised nobody else pointed that out. Moral-relativism is worded differently, but the essence of it is the same.

As for the rest of your post, I appreciate the input though I'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of it to my argument. Unless of course you're agreeing with me.

[WestViking]

Moral relativisim = believing that most things are a shade of gray, and very few things are black or white

Exclusiveness = believing that people are people no matter what colour skin they have, what God they believe, or what gender they sleep with

Hardly - but your definitions leave a lot to be desired:

Moral relativism is associated with a thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not absolute, but relative to some group of persons.

Exclusiveness is the opposite of your definition; selectiveness and restrictiveness are synonyms. You may mean inclusiveness.

Moral relativism is used as a club against those one disagrees with - it is rare for anyone to claim moral relativism.

The Church as guardian of Christian morality is hardly open to moral relativism; one cannot sin a little bit. If you sleep with your neighbour's wife or daughter, it is hardly relevant that he somehow wronged you in the past. You are not only morally wrong, you have brought innocent people into a quarrel they had no part in.

Cultures that allow wife-beating exist but their existence does not make their behaviour morally correct. I do not have to accept that cruelty to another person is allowed or to be condoned no matter what justification they may put forward.

You're absolutely correct about my incorrect use of exclusiveness, I'm surprised nobody else pointed that out. Moral-relativism is worded differently, but the essence of it is the same.

As for the rest of your post, I appreciate the input though I'm having a hard time understanding the relevance of it to my argument. Unless of course you're agreeing with me.

Moral relativism is not really morality at all in any ordinary sense of the term. Moral relativism is an effort to escape a moral code, usually the generally accepted moral code of Christian democracies. Homosexuality and lesbianism are contrary to the Christian moral code which is inconvenient to liberals; hence they preach a mantra of tolerance and inclusion in an effort to evade the moral code accepted by society as a whole.

The problem with moral relevancy is that it engenders chaos; if each citizen adopts a separate moral code in accordance with personal beliefs, we wind up with no social standard at all. Morality and ethics are deeply intertwined, and a chaotic moral code results in similar chaos in ethics.

Ethics and morality are the basis of trust. If you cannot trust a person to follow a conventional code of ethics and morality you can afford to trust no one and we are well on our way to a return to barbarism where leadership is based on brute strength and the capacity for viciousness.

Ethical and moral codes can be misused and history is resplendent with examples of abuse and misuse; however, moral relativism is not a solution or a substitute for the compassion needed to make ethical and moral codes work. Ethical and moral codes have to be tempered by the principle of 'doing no harm' to be effective.

Most people forget that the Ten Commandments were given to the tribes of Israel while they wandered in the wilderness. The rules were (and are) intended to allow people to live in peace without turning to violence as a means of addressing hurts imposed by fellow tribesmen. Some people feel that the Commandments are not relevant to modern life, but the requirement to respect others and their property is as relevant today as it ever was.

For the record, I am not a keen proponent of all church teaching or of organized religion. That said I am more worried that people who want to shun moral codes as "religious teachings" are only partly right; some churches go overboard in adding to moral codes and forget the 'do no harm' principle. However a secular society without a code of ethics and morality is not a civilized society at all. Civilization requires adoption of social standards and values which allows citizens to live in peace, safety and security. Moral relativism undermines the foundations of civilization.

[Charles Anthony]

Point of order guys: Stop repeating entire posts. It is not necessary to repeat the entire post.

Using the [ Quote ] Feature: Avoid using more too many quotes!

Trim Your Posts and Quotes, Don't just hit "Reply"

[tml12]

tml,

Can you ridicule something which Jack Layton says without lashing out and looking down at every person who votes NDP?

I'm pretty sure you can.

Likewise, I was not "lashing out" against the pope and the entire Roman Catholic Church - but rather, this particular argument put forth by the Pope with which I strongly disagree.

Nonetheless, I'm sorry if I offended you.

You did not offend me. I was just trying to clarify the various positions of the Church on this issue.

That being said, while I do not like the NDP I have not lashed out at the entire NDP (to my knowledge) but if I have I am sorry.

[Figleaf]

... He's supporting the core practices and beliefs that have made... much of the rest of the world a sh*thole.

!!!!!

[Black Dog]

The Pope? How many divisions does he have?

[gc1765]

I don't think he's frantic at all. He's supporting the core practices and beliefs that have made the West a great place to live, and much of the rest of the world a sh*thole. Before you tear down great institutions you better d@mned well have something to replace them with.

Not allowing homosexuals to marry is what made the West a great place to live and the rest of the world a shithole??

[Slavik44]

See I always figured what made the west great was this little thing called freedom, not only economic but personal and social freedom.

For all I care the pope can say what he likes. However, it is somewhat abusrd to expect that in a country like Canada filled with people from many different backgrounds, from many different religions, and often with no religion at all to follow the doctrine of the christian religion.

It is somewhat of a joke for the pope to say that his God created marriage and we should follow what his God says. Around the world all different types of people, with various beliefs have been gettign married for centuries on end. Marriage has not and is not confined to Catholic Christians. Marriage certainly has ties to religion in general but who is the one to tell us that marriage in western society must be defined on the basis of what the bible says. Certainly the catholoc church can choose which marriages it blesses and does not bless.

But as for the government it should not be the case that we require the government, or the laws of a country, to draw their subscriptions from not just religion, but one particular religion in general.

It is unjustifiable to suggest that what has made the west great is the act of defining its laws on the bible. What made the west great was breaking away from the archiac act of forced devotion to religion. For that matter if you are religous do you sit back and think, God is going to be really happy with me today I forced 3 people to follow the bible.

[jbg]

tml,

Can you ridicule something which Jack Layton says without lashing out and looking down at every person who votes NDP?

I vote NDP and TML doesn't lash out at me.

[jefferiah]

The Pope isnt forcing anyone to follow the Bible though, Slavik. He is just saying what he believes, which is what we all do on here. He doesn't sound frantic at all. I dont think he was running around like a rabbit with a vest on, grasping at his pocket watch saying "Dear Me, I'm late, I'm late."

[jbg]

Ethical and moral codes can be misused and history is resplendent with examples of abuse and misuse; however, moral relativism is not a solution or a substitute for the compassion needed to make ethical and moral codes work. Ethical and moral codes have to be tempered by the principle of 'doing no harm' to be effective.

Most people forget that the Ten Commandments were given to the tribes of Israel while they wandered in the wilderness. The rules were (and are) intended to allow people to live in peace without turning to violence as a means of addressing hurts imposed by fellow tribesmen. Some people feel that the Commandments are not relevant to modern life, but the requirement to respect others and their property is as relevant today as it ever was.

For the record, I am not a keen proponent of all church teaching or of organized religion. That said I am more worried that people who want to shun moral codes as "religious teachings" are only partly right; some churches go overboard in adding to moral codes and forget the 'do no harm' principle. However a secular society without a code of ethics and morality is not a civilized society at all. Civilization requires adoption of social standards and values which allows citizens to live in peace, safety and security. Moral relativism undermines the foundations of civilization.

Couldn't have been better said, Sir or Madam. In my particular religion, on our Day of Atonement, the talk and preaching is always about the fact that G-d tempers justice with mercy. Or as you said, "(e)thical and moral codes have to be tempered by the principle of 'doing no harm' to be effective." Your views, unintentionally, come very close to a "Jewish result".

[gc1765]

I vote NDP...

I thought you were American?

[Slavik44]

The Pope isnt forcing anyone to follow the Bible though, Slavik. He is just saying what he believes, which is what we all do on here. He doesn't sound frantic at all. I dont think he was running around like a rabbit with a vest on, grasping at his pocket watch saying "Dear Me, I'm late, I'm late."

I never said the pope was being frantic, you can take that issue up with whoever said it, but not with me...please don't attribute statements to me that are not my own.

Furthermore I believe if you look at my post I said the Pope can say what he likes. On top of that I said that the catholic church certainly has the right to choose which marriages they bless.

However, I did state that a country like Canada, given the background of people in the country, should not use the tenets of the bible as the source for its laws. And certainly forced devotion is not what makes or made the west great. The opinion and policy of the catholic church is that the law in Canada regarding marriage should be in accordance with the bible. THE BIBLE HAS NO PLACE IN YOUR BEDROOM OR ANYTHING RELATING TO YOU, UNLESS YOU PERSONALLY INVITED IT IN. Society should not be allowed to invite the bible to your wedding or make it the focus of your wedding, no more then I should be allowed to make the song "Crazy Bitch" the official song to be played as the bride walks down the aisle at your wedding.

[jbg]

I vote NDP...

I thought you were American?

I am. The Democrats that I support are the Bill Clinton-style Democrats, a bit more centrist than much of the party. They called themselves "New Democrats". Just a bit of humor, a play on words.

[jbg]

However, I did state that a country like Canada, given the background of people in the country, should not use the tenets of the bible as the source for its laws.

"PART I

Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" -

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Figleaf]

Moral relativism is not really morality at all in any ordinary sense of the term. Moral relativism is an effort to escape a moral code, usually the generally accepted moral code of Christian democracies.

I don't think its really an effort to 'escape' anything. Rather, its an opinion that morality is conditioned by culture and circumstances.

Homosexuality and lesbianism are contrary to the Christian moral code which is inconvenient to liberals; hence they preach a mantra of tolerance and inclusion in an effort to evade the moral code accepted by society as a whole.

-If it were really "accepted by society as a whole", we wouldn't be having this discussion.

-There is no 'the' Christian moral code. There are several flavors of Christianity with varying morals.

-It is not the inconvenience of Christian morals which lead to the views of moral relativists.

-Many liberals are not moral relativists.

Morality and ethics are deeply intertwined, and a chaotic moral code results in similar chaos in ethics.

Where is your support for that, please.

[frogs]

However, I did state that a country like Canada, given the background of people in the country, should not use the tenets of the bible as the source for its laws.

"PART I

Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" -

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

What about Oz?

[BC_chick]

I vote NDP...

I thought you were American?

He's kidding. I think anyway.

Or maybe someone needs to bring him up to date with the NDP's past (and to a lesser degree, present) policies regarding Israel.

[Slavik44]

However, I did state that a country like Canada, given the background of people in the country, should not use the tenets of the bible as the source for its laws.

"PART I

Canadian charter of rights and freedoms

Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:" -

Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

a) freedom of conscience and religion;

[jbg]

I vote NDP...

I thought you were American?

He's kidding. I think anyway.

Or maybe someone needs to bring him up to date with the NDP's past (and to a lesser degree, present) policies regarding Israel.

[Black Dog]

Civilization requires adoption of social standards and values which allows citizens to live in peace, safety and security. Moral relativism undermines the foundations of civilization.

Not so. Moral reletavism merely acknowledges that the standards and values which allow citizens to live in peace, safety and security are not universal. Whether those other value systems are desirable or not is in the eye of the beholder.

Me, I would reject the claim made by my handy strawrelativist that all value/belief systems are equal. But then, that's 'cause I'm approaching it from a western, post-Enlightenment background. I would acknowledge the superiority of our system of liberal pluralism, while acknowledging that thos evalues are not likely to be universally valid or applicable. Indeed, it seems that many seem intent on basing foreign policy aroun dthe self-belief in the superiority of our ways without due consideration of whether our ways will be acceptable to those upon whom we are imposing them: an effort most certainly doomed to failure.

[fellowtraveller]

By "the mighty" I meant the Catholic Church of which the Pope is the top-figure. IOW how the once most powerful establishment on earth is now down to a "bent old man" (borrowing your description here) whose words fall on deaf ears.

The similar words which helped destroy communism in eastern europe???

If you want to compare the fall of the Catholic Church to the fall of Communism, be my guest. The similarities are there indeed. I'll take that a step further and compare today's religious-minded people to the Castros of the world and their followers who are grasping onto a proven ill-functioning ideology either because of greed or sheer stupidity.

Ah,, atheism.

The New Evangelism.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

[jefferiah]

My comparison would be the Catholic Church with the Czar, not with Communism.