Morality versus Ethics

[walker 0]

Hi all

Is it me or have we been invaded by some strange fundoliginist sect?

Some of the offtopic threads lately have had a decided weird moral content.

The problem with morality is its absolutism married to the belief that your morality is the right one.

One persons morality is always another persons sin. To such a degree in the christian fundoligionist sects that they will actualy burn each other at the stake; given half a chance. Catholics burned Puritans at the stake and the same Puritans  burnt Catholics at the stake. All religions have had just as bitter wars between their various sects. It is why the concept of Morality is fundamentaly flawed.

I speak as one who's Catholic Irish Grandmother married my God Fearing, Orange Lodge member of Grandfather from Scotland.

Me myself I got baptised Catholic went to Salvation Army Sunday school and ignored the crap out of all of it. Brainwashing is for suckers.

I promptly became and anarcho nazerite audio-terrorist from the budhist branch. This is a special sect just for me all other atempts to join are infact a breakaway sect doomed to roast marshmellows for all eternity at whichever times they want to.

Personaly I have always favoured ethics over morality. I stand by what I say and accept its consequences non of this commy namby pamby "It was my religious upbringinging that made me do it your honour its in the book so I thought I was alowed your honour excuses."

If I do something I chose to do it not God.

Kind Regards Walker

[Tovarish 0]

Amen to that!

[EiZei 0]

I was something called a "habitual christian" some years back, then I decided to take a look in the bible and now im a godless secularist infidel agnostic who will go to hell in some 60 years if certain other christians wont deliver me in advance.

In a way you could say that god is almost orwellian, angels are thought police, dissent is not tolerated, there is no fair trial and the punishments are exceedingly harsh.

[shinRaiden 0]

You are just as entitled to your opinions as I am to mine. The problem as it arose in the US Presidential Election thread and previously in the War on Terror and Middle Eastern threads among others is that there is a very fine line between debatable issues and scenarios, and undebatable principles.

By undebatable, I am refering to the philosophical preaching from both sides. For example, questions about gay marriage legislation or litigation are debatable secular issues, the morals either way of homosexuality is undebatable philosophical preaching. Operations in Iraq are debabtable, the doctrine of intervention and preemption are undebatable dogmas.

This thread will last as long as the "conservatives only" thread, because it is for preaching, and not debating.

What would be an excellent question, and one I'm interesting in hearing replies on, is whether or not its possible to debate politics on principles at all. From the fundamentalist conservative viewpoint, I support an organizational seperation of Church and State, but am in favor of some moral legislation, because I view my political principles as a subset of my philosophical principles.

My initial response would be that some issues, such as God in the Pledge and on the Money and Ten Commandments on the wall etc are not debatable, they're an expected baseline. On the other hand, I'm sure many of strongly feel that they very much are debatable topics, but is it because you hold an intellectully fundamentalist position and are looking for a means to legislate your position as I do mine?

[denoir 0]

To nitpick a bit: "ethics" is the theory of of moral values. Moral philosophy is you will.

But yes, there is a worrying tendency world-wide that is very much incompatible with the scientific and technological progress of the society. We have a radicalization of Islam in parts of the world, a revival of Christian fundamentalism in others. Through religion you can justify anything and most religions have conflicting beliefs. Others turn to pseudo-sciences, New Age and Astrology.

The irony is that this comes at a time when we have become extremely dependant on technology and science. The basic prequisite for them is a common world view. Without a common reality, equal for all, there can be no science. There can be no technological progress.

If we turn back and let religious values and supersticion rule our lives, then we are on our way to medieval times.

Religion in an absolute majority of cases is absolute - it cannot compromise. Now while that may have worked when we were living in isolated villages, it most certainly can't work in a global environement. Conflict is inevitable.

We also know how cruel the truth often is, and we wonder whether delusion is not more consoling.

HENRI POINCARE (1854-1912)

---

Here, for example, is what is written in a cuneiform inscription on a Babylonian cylinder seal from the second millennium B.C.:

Oh, Ninlil, Lady of the Lands, in your marriage bed, in the abode of your delight, intercede for me with Enlil, your beloved.

[signed] Mili-Shipak, Shatammu of Ninmah.

It's been a long time since there's been a Shatammu in Ninmah, or even a Ninmah. Despite the fact that Enlil and Ninlil were major gods—people all over the civilized Western world had prayed to them for two thousand years—was poor Mili-Shipak in fact praying to a phantom, to a societally condoned product of his imagination? And if so, what about us? Or is this blasphemy, a forbidden question —as doubtless it was among the worshipers of Enlil?

[Donnervogel 0]

Quote[/b] ]the doctrine of intervention and preemption are undebatable dogmas

I'm not sure if I understood this right. Are you saying a doctrine of preemption and intervention is an undebatable moral issue?

I could't disagree more if you said that. IMHO this "doctrine" is nothing more than political strategy motivated by the prospect of economical and political advantages. Therefore it's perfectly debateable for me.

[Acecombat 0]

All i can say is 'what-the-****'

[walker 0]

Hi Denoir

Yep I am in favour of studying what is right and wrong and against defining it.

The reason being a person is the judge.

Kind Regards Walker

[FSPilot 0]

Can anybody else say "too offtopic for offtopic"?

The problem with morality is its absolutism married to the belief that your morality is the right one.

Well duh.  Everybody believes that their morality (whether conservative or liberal) is the right one, otherwise they wouldn't believe it.

To such a degree in the christian fundoligionist sects that they will actualy burn each other at the stake; given half a chance. Catholics burned Puritans at the stake and the same Puritans  burnt Catholics at the stake. All religions have had just as bitter wars between their various sects. It is why the concept of Morality is fundamentaly flawed.

I've never burned anybody at the stake or engaged in any bitter wars over religion, did I inherit some sin from my forefathers?

There's nothing wrong with being religious.  People can believe what they want to.  Just because you believe something different doesn't make everybody else wrong, or stupid.  And nobody's burning anybody at the stake or having any wars between sects, at least not in any civilised society. The fact that you bring that up only indicates that you don't have any argument.

[shinRaiden 0]

And nobody's burning anybody at the stake or having any wars between sects, at least not in any civilised society. The fact that you bring that up only indicates that you don't have any argument.

Hey, no blabbing about the secret reasons for Bush's pro-logging Environmental policies and refusal to support Kyoto.

[denoir 0]

Can anybody else say "too offtopic for offtopic"?

Had it been a private matter than yes. Unfortunately today as always, it is largely politics because those in power enforce their sect's brand of morality onto others.

Quote[/b] ]I've never burned anybody at the stake or engaged in any bitter wars over religion, did I inherit some sin from my forefathers?

It depends. If you are Catholic, then you have the Original Sin. If you are Buddhist then you have probably been demoted from a higher life-form to what you are now

No but seriously, Walker showed it as an example of what happens when you let religious convictions run amok

Quote[/b] ]There's nothing wrong with being religious.  People can believe what they want to.  Just because you believe something different doesn't make everybody else wrong, or stupid.

The problem is that it does. The religions are mutually exclusive. Now the western society is very secularized so in many countries the various sects show a brave united front against secularism. Make no mistake though, if any of them would come to power, they would impose their beliefs onto others. They are in no position of doing anything else as according to them there is only one truth and that's the values of their brand of religion.

Quote[/b] ]And nobody's burning anybody at the stake or having any wars between sects, at least not in any civilised society.

While nobody is burning anybody at the stake, people are getting stoned in for instance Iran. In America you are banning stem cell research. Condoms are not given to high-school teenagers because the moral issue of premarital sex is more important than the practical issue of teen pregnencies. Reality is ignored in favour of dogma. Gay marriages are being banned across the US. Teaching evolution is banned in some schools.

In 1993, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring that the world is flat. Anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished.

etc etc

A current example is Bush's re-election, where a vast majority of those that voted for him listed "moral values" as their primary reason. They'll expect those moral values to be implemented.

[Hjaldar 0]

[...]the morals either way of homosexuality is undebatable philosophical preaching.

And I thought homosexuality was just an alternative sexual orientation given by nature and also to be found in other mammal species (for example lions or buffaloes) who are not known to have moral imaginations.

These people, may they be gay or lesbian, have not decided to be what they are - they are what they are. Who cares? Do they do any harm? Some of my university commilitones are homosexual. Whoaa! Death Sin!

No, really - every belief is getting dangerous at that point when it starts to indoctinate other people.

[walker 0]

Hi all

I think fundaliligionism or extremist religion married to politics is infact a self dooming philosophy. As indeed is any fundamentalist philosphy.

The christian political right will follow the same path as the islamic right because they are identical.

In Algeria where the islamic right ran its course the  fundaligionist sects fell to infighting about the meaning of the koran/bible/book until eventualy there was just one of the fundaligionist cells left it having killed all the other sects and this then imploded to infighting itself leaving them all dead.

The christian right is similarly self defeating philosphy when given political power.

The problem is that as the Algerians experienced we will probably experience the same destruction they did.

Fundaligionism is esentialy based on hate. Christian Fundaligionism in the US has already embraced terrorism with the bombing and shooting of family planning centres. It is already becomming increasingly authoritarian when in power. With its embrace of laws to curtail the freedoms of non believers to maginalise and make them illegal  and to enforce its beliefs on others. The similarities to the Ayatola's Iran are remarkable.

The question becomes now that they have come for the homosexuals, as the Nazis did themselves as their first act, Pastor Martin Niemöller got that wrong probably because he was anti homosexual; they also came for the disabled before the Jews but they had their fundaligionist plan get rid of everyone who was not them and eventualy every body got included:

The question you have to ask your self as you step quietly into the night is when will they come for you?

I will leave the rest to the good Pastor.

Quote[/b] ]First they came for the Jews

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the Communists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a Communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists

and I did not speak out

because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left

to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Walker showed it as an example of what happens when you let religious convictions run amok.

Like this in 1994?

The christian political right will follow the same path as the islamic right because they are identical.

In Algeria where the islamic right ran its course the  fundaligionist sects fell to infighting about the meaning of the koran/bible/book until eventualy there was just one of the fundaligionist cells left it having killed all the other sects and this then imploded to infighting itself leaving them all dead.

Walker, do you consider Zionism an example of fundaligionism?

If so then why and what do you expect will become of Zionism?

If not then why not?

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]The religions are mutually exclusive. Now the western society is very secularized so in many countries the various sects show a brave united front against secularism. Make no mistake though, if any of them would come to power, they would impose their beliefs onto others. They are in no position of doing anything else as according to them there is only one truth and that's the values of their brand of religion.

And how can secularism be any different?

Its all a matter of ideologys if a religious person doesnt shoves it in a non-religious one will , so whats the difference? Each one is hell bent on destroying the other. They do it through different/various means which ever suits their level of morality best. A religious extremist thinks killing or forceful converting is best , A moderate believer thinks arguing rationally his point is best , A secularist thinks exposing the religious person to the opposite of his belief and tempt him via means which his religion prohibits i can have him finally give up all that nonesense.

Its all the same. Were all trying to influence each other via different means and magnitudes but its happening for real.

[walker 0]

Hi all

And at Bernadotte all religions have their fundaligionists as do all philosophies. Communism, Facism, yes even fundamentalist democracy.

The funny thing in regard to religion is that it is the essentialy anti god in nature; as it ascribes the total understanding to believers rather than to god.

It is in itself the ultimate blasphemy.

The only thing that prevents fundaligionism is seperation of state from religion. As the founding fathers of the US new.

The only way to go then is a secular state.

To some extent Israel is secular but there are religious political parties and they are prepared to commit terrorist acts up to and including killing the elected leaders and threatening the current one.

With regard to Zionism which version do you mean their are hundreds of zionist sects from soft hippies to rabid zenophobes who want to do exactly what Al Qaida do. Up to and including killing all the false zionist from hippy types to the Zionist just one step removed from them selves.

Kind Regards Walker

[denoir 0]

And how can secularism be any different?  

´

Secularism does not exclude a religious belief. It only says that religion should not be allowed to make laws.

We are all human beings - that's the base of secularism. A good example of secular ethics is the Universal Human Rights Declaration.

Quote[/b] ]A moderate believer thinks arguing rationally his point is best

Religon is not about reason or rational argument. The tenets at the heart of religion can be tested scientifically. This in itself makes some religious bureaucrats and believers wary of science. Is the Eucharist, as the Church teaches, in fact, and not just as productive metaphor, the flesh of Jesus Christ, or is it—chemically, microscopically, and in other ways — just a wafer handed to you by a priest?  Will the world be destroyed at the end of the 52-year Venus cycle unless humans are sacrificed to the gods?  Does the occasional uncircumcised Jewish man fare worse than his co-religionists who abide by the ancient covenant in which God demands a piece of foreskin from every male worshiper? Are there humans populating innumerable other planets, as the Latter Day Saints teach? Were whites created from blacks by a mad scientist, as the Nation of Islam asserts? Would the Sun indeed not rise if the Hindu sacrificial rite is omitted (as we are assured would be the case in the Satapatha Brahmana)?

Does prayer work at all? Which ones?

There's a category of prayer in which God is begged to intervene in human history or just to right some real or imagined injustice or natural calamity—for example, when a bishop prays for God to intervene and end a devastating dry spell. Why is the prayer needed? Didn't God know of the drought? Was he unaware that it threatened the bishop's parishioners?

What is implied here about the limitations of a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient deity? The bishop asked his followers to pray as well. Is God more likely to intervene when many pray for mercy or justice than when only a few do?

Or consider the following request, printed in 1994 in The Prayer and Action Weekly News: Iowa's Weekly Christian Information Source:

Can you join me in praying that God will burn down the Planned Parenthood in Des Moines in a manner no one can mistake for any human torching, which impartial investigators will have to attribute to miraculous (unexplainable) causes, and which Christians will have to attribute to the Hand of God?

What about longevity through prayer? The Victorian statistician Francis Galton argued that—other things being equal — British monarchs ought to be very long-lived, because millions of people all over the world daily intoned the heartfelt mantra "God Save the Queen" (or King). Yet, he showed, if anything, they don't live as long as other members of the wealthy and pampered aristocratic class.

Nearly everyone in ancient Egypt exhorted the gods to let the Pharaoh live "forever." These collective prayers failed. Their failure constitutes data.

By making pronouncements that are, even if only in principle, testable, religions, however unwillingly, enter the arena of science. Religions can no longer make unchallenged assertions about reality—so long as they do not seize secular power, provided they cannot coerce belief.

----

This was however not what I was meaning to go into. What I wanted to add is that there are exceptions - religions that do not blindly follow dogma, no matter what. Religions that actually take the real world into consideration.

One Christian sect that I can think of is the Quakers. They for instance were strongly against witch burning, slavery etc despite it being very much condoned by mainstream Christianity.

Another, quite different religion but also tolerant is for instance Buddhism.

For example the current, 14th Dalai Lama was asked what would happen if a central tenet of Buddhist faith was disproved by science. He he unhesitatingly replied as no conservative or fundamentalist religious leaders do: In such a case, he said, Tibetan Buddhism would have to change. Even, he was  asked, if it's a really central tenet, like reincarnation? Even then, he answered. However—he added with a wink—it's going to be hard to disprove reincarnation.

Plainly, the Dalai Lama is right. Religious doctrine that is insulated from disproof has little reason to worry about the advance of science. The grand idea, common to many faiths, of a Creator of the Universe is one such doctrine—difficult alike to demonstrate or to dismiss.

Unfortunately most religions stray into areas where they don't belong.

[Baphomet 0]

All I can say from personal observation. Is that a secular nation seems to be far more tolerant and accomodating of other people's beliefs.

The good thing about secularism is that it doesn't seem to have any pretense about the beliefs of others. There's no heavy handed judgement stating that if you don't ascribe to these beliefs, you'll be punished or that you should punish and judge others.

Yes. Some non religious individuals have been known to get uppity. However from my experience it's often in response to the encroachment of other religious ideals that seem to infringe upon their own personal rights.

Yes. Some individuals ironically enough make secularism their own personal religion and platform for indignation towards other religions. People with these proclivities are universal and can be found in every denomination of belief.

However. I still find that secularists are typically the most tolerant towards others beliefs. They just don't want other's beliefs to govern how they live. And if one's particular religion compels an individual to push others to ascribe to their beliefs as a part of their religious dictum... then tough shit.

The worst that secularists I think could be accused of is forcing a neutrality of sorts in public society. This however says nothing about one's personal right to practice whatever belief they want as a private citizen.

[FSPilot 0]

Had it been a private matter than yes. Unfortunately today as always, it is largely politics because those in power enforce their sect's brand of morality onto others.

Understandable.  But when morality is a largely influencial factor in the election, and we pick one guy over the other we're picking him because of his morals. Those are the morals that represent the majority of our nation.

It depends. If you are Catholic, then you have the Original Sin. If you are Buddhist then you have probably been demoted from a higher life-form to what you are now

No but seriously, Walker showed it as an example of what happens when you let religious convictions run amok

I was being sarcastic.  One of the reasons many people are atheistic or anti-theistic even is because of the concept of inherited sin.  Now somebody's trying to put what people did hundreds of years ago on me?  A little bit contradictory there.  I've never hurt anybody because of my religion.  To say that my religion is bad because of what somebody did hundreds of years ago is just plain unfair.

While nobody is burning anybody at the stake, people are getting stoned in for instance Iran. In America you are banning stem cell research. Condoms are not given to high-school teenagers because the moral issue of premarital sex is more important than the practical issue of teen pregnencies. Reality is ignored in favour of dogma. Gay marriages are being banned across the US. Teaching evolution is banned in some schools.

How is that burning people at the stake?  Is increased traffic on sundays because of church-goers burning people at the stake too?  Americans voted for a moral and religious president because that's what we want.  Yes, other people might have to put up with us, but we're the majority.  That's just how democracy goes.  Somebody has to not get their way.  If liberals were in charge and they changed all the rules to their beliefs, wouldn't that be the same as what we're doing now?

In 1993, the supreme religious authority of Saudi Arabia, Sheik Abdel-Aziz Ibn Baaz, issued an edict, or fatwa, declaring that the world is flat. Anyone of the round persuasion does not believe in God and should be punished.

Yeah, that's a bad thing.  But why are you ignoring all the good things that religion can do?  My religion has played a huge role in my life, it's made me a better person and it's made a lot of other people better too.  Just because some fringe groups take things way out of hand doesn't mean it's all bad.

A current example is Bush's re-election, where a vast majority of those that voted for him listed "moral values" as their primary reason. They'll expect those moral values to be implemented.

Of course.  And it's the same thing for Kerry.  If Kerry were elected it would of been because of his moral values.  And his moral values would of been implemented as well.  Isn't that the same thing you're talking about?  Either way one side isn't going to get their way, be it liberals or conservatives.

[Bernadotte 0]

With regard to Zionism which version do you mean their are hundreds of zionist sects from soft hippies to rabid zenophobes who want to do exactly what Al Qaida do.

I'm referring to any individual/sect that believes the Jewish people constitute a nation who were entitled to establish a national homeland* in Palestine.  

Can an individual hold such a belief without being a fundaligionist?

* national homeland = independent state

[Phleep 0]

I think the issue here is that Bush is going to force the beliefs of the slight majority on the other half of the country.

Just because you believe it should be Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve doesn't mean someone else should.

You are not obliged in any way to marry Steve, but if you make it law then no one is allowed to whether they want to or not.

Same goes for Stem cell research. If you don't like it, don't do it. If some one else likes it then let them bake the the lakes of Sulphur for all eternity, don't stop them from doing it because of your specifically religious beliefs.

The other hot topic of abortion is a messier one as it can quite possibly affect you if someone else does it. If a wayward teenage daughter of Christian parents gets an abortion to hide the truth of her ways then she may regret it later and suffer accordingly if she returns to the religion. As a parent I would be devastated if my daughter had an abortion without my knowledge and guidance.

I prefer the NZ attitude which takes the middle ground on abortions and lets them occur only in the first trimester while the baby is still an embryo (or splodge for want of a better word). Bit concerned about the lack of parental consent required for teens though.

rant over

[walker 0]

With regard to Zionism which version do you mean their are hundreds of zionist sects from soft hippies to rabid zenophobes who want to do exactly what Al Qaida do.

I'm referring to any individual/sect that believes the Jewish people constitute a nation who were entitled to establish a national homeland* in Palestine.  

Can an individual hold such a belief without being a fundaligionist?

* national homeland = independent state

Hi Bernadotte

I am philosophicaly a Practical Anarchist on a purely personal level I think that the notion of a Nation State is a model of reality that is fundamentaly flawed being too granular and mono perspective to serve as basis for life and death desisions. I do not think there should be a Palestine or an Israel, or a Siria, or a United Kingdom, or USA etc, etc.

But I am practical about it. You and the other nation builders will not see this and so I accept you want your model of reality because you find looking at life for real is too complex. There are far more of you than there is of me. Like people who go arround saying the world is flat you are wrong. I am hopeful that eventualy people will learn. I do not expect this to happen right now but who knows.

The patch of ground you are on about was taken in war from the palestinians by Israeli's, given to the Palestininans including Jews by the brits after the Israeli terrorists bombed the brits out (yes I know they were leaving anyway) taken in war by the brits from the Otoman turks who took it from the Arabs who took it from the Crusaders who took it from the Arabs (there was lots of this) the Arabs took it from the Christians who took it from the Jews who when the Romans left took it from the Romans, the Romans took it from the Jews, who had lost it to the greeks, who took it from the jews, who took it from the various city states that poped up after the fall of the Egyption empire, etc on back before written records. And this is a very rough history that misses out lots.

Religion does not give you a right to a patch of ground. War certainly does, if you can hold it. This is just a statement of reality.

It was not religion that won Israel for the Jews, it was people with guns, terrorist bombs, tanks, artillery, fighter and bomber planes, strong alies, and the willingness to kill and die using them to hold that patch of ground.

Are there fundaligionist among Palestinians and Israelis? Yep.

Are all Israelis and Palestinians fundaligionists? Nope probably less than 0.0000001 %

Are the fundaligionist powerfull in Palestinians and Israelis? Yep.

But all fundaligionism is basicly self destructive Check out Cambodia and Algeria they are short lived and self defeating even though very destructive.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Are all Israelis and Palestinians fundaligionists? Nope probably less than 0.0000001 %

Walker, I'm simply trying to understand the term fundaligionism, which you introduced in the first line of this thread and later referred to as extremist religion married to politics. How extreme is extreme?

Certainly you must realise that much more than 0.0000001 % of Israelis believe that the Jewish people were entitled to establish a national homeland in Palestine on the basis of what they believe to be a promise from God. Countless innocent people died as a result of that belief being married to politics. Is that not extreme enough?

[denoir 0]

Had it been a private matter than yes. Unfortunately today as always, it is largely politics because those in power enforce their sect's brand of morality onto others.

Understandable.  But when morality is a largely influencial factor in the election, and we pick one guy over the other we're picking him because of his morals.  Those are the morals that represent the majority of our nation.

It's not a trivial issue. The conviction of majority isn't always the right thing. A majority of Americans supported the Iraq war, a majority of Europeans opposed it. Clearly a contradictory result. A majority of the Aztecs were convinced that human sacrifices were necessary to please the Gods. In the middle ages people thought that burning witches was quite ok. Less then a century ago in America thought that blacks should not be allowed to vote. A century ago people thought that women should not be allowed to vote. And the list goes on.

So what is the "right" thing and is there a "right" thing at all? I would say that there is. We are all humans that have the same basic needs and desires. That's if nothing else dictated by our biology.

Take a look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. All member states of the UN have accepted it. When it was put forward, not a single vote was against it. Why? Because these are simply put values that we share as human beings. Not even the worst violators of these rights have the stomach to say that they are wrong.

Do you find anything that you disagree with in them? My guess is that you don't. You and I have very different political opinions, very different views on religion etc - yet we can probably both agree on these rights. That would indicate that there is indeed something universal about them (or at least something common for us as humans).

A valid moral argument can only come from a foundation that we all share. This is especially true when you go so far as to legislate the moral values. Enforcing morals that are only valid for one specific religion results in imposing your brand of values onto others. We've had plenty of experience with that - both in the form of political and religious oppression.

Quote[/b] ]I was being sarcastic. One of the reasons many people are atheistic or anti-theistic even is because of the concept of inherited sin. Now somebody's trying to put what people did hundreds of years ago on me? A little bit contradictory there. I've never hurt anybody because of my religion. To say that my religion is bad because of what somebody did hundreds of years ago is just plain unfair.

I'm not blaming you personally for the bad things that religion has done throughout the ages. I'm just saying that we have a great deal of experience what happens when you mix religious teachings with politics. It ain't pretty. We should learn from that experience and not make the same mistakes again. In Europe we had 1,000 years of the dark ages thanks to Christian fundamentalism that chose religious values over humanitarian values and chose religious dogma over science. And this is not specific for Europe. You in America had your share of witch burnings as well. This is also not limited to Christianity. The Arabs were very prominent in science, medicine, literature etc before and in the early days of Islam, before it turned to dogma. Look at their societies now. Is that really the direction you want to take?

Quote[/b] ]

While nobody is burning anybody at the stake, people are getting stoned in for instance Iran. In America you are banning stem cell research. Condoms are not given to high-school teenagers because the moral issue of premarital sex is more important than the practical issue of teen pregnencies. Reality is ignored in favour of dogma. Gay marriages are being banned across the US. Teaching evolution is banned in some schools.

How is that burning people at the stake?

It's cohercing people into your beliefs with complete disregard for reality, human values etc

A very good example is the banning of gay marriages. It's nothing but institutionalization of homophobia. And they are trying to justify it through religious dogma. It is discrimination no different from half a century ago when they tried to ban mixed race marriages. There, they tried to use religion as an excuse to institutionalize racism.

If you leave the religious definition of marriage out and look at just the legal definition of marriage - if you skip the religious dogma, can you make any argument for why gay people should not have the same rights as straight people?

Quote[/b] ]Is increased traffic on sundays because of church-goers burning people at the stake too?

No, going to church is your own choice. It doesn't hurt other people. If you ban the teaching of evolution in schools on the other hand, you are denying children to learn the scientific facts, in favor of indoctrinating them with dogma specific to one religion. It is actually even worse than the Saudi Arabia example - that the earth is flat was a religious law. Here you are enforcing it on state level.

Gay marriages are another obvious example, where a religious group enforces its rules on everybody, regardless if they are followers of that religion or not.

Quote[/b] ]And it's the same thing for Kerry. If Kerry were elected it would of been because of his moral values. And his moral values would of been implemented as well. Isn't that the same thing you're talking about? Either way one side isn't going to get their way, be it liberals or conservatives.

I can't agree with that. The major differences betwen Kerry and Bush was not about religious moral values (they tended to be pretty much the same) is that Kerry opposed enforcing these values in a legal context. He was personally against gay marriages - because of his religion - but he was against changing the constitution to impose these values on the entire country.

[walker 0]

Hi Bernadotte

Was the the formation of Israel fundaligionist? Nope.

Was it religious zionism that created Israel? Historiclay no, the original zionists were secularists with communist leanings.

Have fundaligionists atempted to take over in Israel yes and as I said they are willing to asasinate and use terroism to gain power.

Was palestinian land stolen? Yep.

Will they ever get back any other than the West Bank and Gaza? Nope.

Was it fundaligionism that done it? Nope but the fundaligionists like to say they did. Not true like George Bush's Chicken hawks they are far to busy dodging the draft.

The Israeli State is a fact. Live with it. They wont pack up and go live somewhere else just cause you call them bad names. They are there to stay.

The only thing that is worth fighting about is a Palestinian state which should basicly be the West Bank and Gaza as described by the UN.

I said in these forums it will take a war that kills 2 million Israelis and at least the same number of Palestinians to make the two sides see sense and learn to live with each as neighbours.

Kind Regards Walker