Morality versus Ethics

[Gadger 0]

An employee on a production line is diabetic, on one particular day he is careless with his diet, and upon feeling the beginnings of a hypoglaecemic attack he eats an item off the production line to prevent his collapse. Eating items off the production line is punishable by instant dismissal. The HR department review this case.

What swings the decision?

Morallity?

Ethics?

Or common sense?

[FSPilot 0]

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.

I partially agree with you here, but I don't see it as an enforcement of our morals on everybody.  I see it as a protection of our morals from everybody.  Considering the issue of gay marriage, it treads all over the institution we had set up as a religious union between a man and a woman.  Why should we sit by and be forced to believe that gay marriages should be allowed?  What happened to our freedoms?

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?

You make a good point.  But I don't think we should just throw our religion out of the window for the sake of technological advancements.  It's not all bad you know.  Religion has a lot of great things to offer.

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.

But we're protecting what we believe.  I don't believe two men should be married in my church.  Who is the government to step in and say that they can?  Aren't they also cohercing people into their beliefs when they do that?

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?

No, but I don't believe that marriage is a purely legal event.  I think marriage is a religious union.  That's why they do it in a church, in front of a pastor who's reading from a Bible.

I'm perfectly fine with legal unions between same sex partners.  Just don't do it in my church and call it a marriage.

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.

But aren't they also enforcing their beliefs on people when they tell us which theory to teach?  When religions are based on the theory of evolution, isn't it the same thing as teaching creationism in school?  I think so.

I understand what your objection is and I partly agree with it.  I don't think we should be making all of our rules based on religion.  But I also think that there's a profound lack of tolerance for religion in the US today.  There should be a balance between the religious and non-religious sides in the US instead of this one way or another deal.  I'm sure there's a compromise somewhere.

[EiZei 0]

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.

But we're protecting what we believe. I don't believe two men should be married in my church. Who is the government to step in and say that they can? Aren't they also cohercing people into their beliefs when they do that?

Will FBI troopers storm your church and force you to marry them? No.

Nobody is coercing you and the others of your religion to have gay people married, marriage is not just a christian thing in case you did not notice. If you do not want them to get married in in your church, fine. But let them do whatever they want between themselves and the state.

[FSPilot 0]

Will FBI troopers storm your church and force you to marry them? No.

Will they storm the church and force them to not marry? No.

Nobody is coercing you and the others of your religion to have gay people married, marriage is not just a christian thing in case you did not notice.

It is when they want to get married in a Christian church.

If you do not want them to get married in in your church, fine. But let them do whatever they want between themselves and the state.

Like I said, I don't have a problem with that. Just don't do it in my church and call it a christian marriage.

[Baphomet 0]

Unfortunately the ban on gay marriage also applies to marriages performed altogether. Even if it isn't in a church and performed by a justice of the peace as far as I understand.

Which to me seems excessive. It's clearly an agenda that's being pushed to control the way people live their lives in my opinion.

[EiZei 0]

Nobody is coercing you and the others of your religion to have gay people married, marriage is not just a christian thing in case you did not notice.

It is when they want to get married in a Christian church.

And what is forcing you to let them?

[denoir 0]

I partially agree with you here, but I don't see it as an enforcement of our morals on everybody.  I see it as a protection of our morals from everybody.  Considering the issue of gay marriage, it treads all over the institution we had set up as a religious union between a man and a woman.  Why should we sit by and be forced to believe that gay marriages should be allowed?  What happened to our freedoms?

Marriage is not a religious union - not the one we're talking about. We're talking about state-issued marriage licenses. Nobody is saying that the church must accept or perform these marriages.

Just like the church should not interfere in state matters, the state has no business interfering in church matters.

Quote[/b] ]You make a good point. But I don't think we should just throw our religion out of the window for the sake of technological advancements. It's not all bad you know. Religion has a lot of great things to offer.

I'm not arguing that there's no value to religion and that religion should be banned in any way. What I am saying is that there must be a clear separation of church and state. The state must be equal for all its citiziens, regardless of religion. Religious belief is a private matter.

Quote[/b] ]No, but I don't believe that marriage is a purely legal event. I think marriage is a religious union. That's why they do it in a church, in front of a pastor who's reading from a Bible.

Marriage in the church is a religious union. Marriage in the form of a license issued by the state is not. It's a legal definition outlining the rights and responsibilities - a formal contract for a relationship. Since you (at least on paper) have a separation of church and state (unlike theocracies like Iran), the legal concept of marriage and the religious concept of marriage have to be kept apart.

Quote[/b] ]I'm perfectly fine with legal unions between same sex partners. Just don't do it in my church and call it a marriage.

Legal unions are an attempt to make the religious definition of marriage equal to the legal definition of marriage. The only point of that is to try to breach the separation of church and state. As I said, nobody is trying to force the church to perform gay weddings.

Quote[/b] ]But aren't they also enforcing their beliefs on people when they tell us which theory to teach? When religions are based on the theory of evolution, isn't it the same thing as teaching creationism in school? I think so.

Teaching creationism is no different from teaching that the earth is flat. The theory of evolution is no less supported by fact than the theory that the world is round. If you are claiming to teach the kids science, then you should be teaching the kids science and not religious dogma. This is especially true as different religions have very different views on the world - are you going to teach them all? Because there are people that believe that the earth is flat, do you think we should teach the kids that?

Those things that are specific to a religion and not compatible with a reality free of religious bias should not be taught in school. You have your chuch activities for that, where pastors are free to preach how the earth is 6,000 years old and flat. As such views truly can't be supported by real science, it should not be taught as science.

Quote[/b] ]But I also think that there's a profound lack of tolerance for religion in the US today.

Heh. From my point of view, you are bordering to religious fundamentalism. While you are not like Iran et al, you are probably closer in that respect to them than to for instance Europe. I really can't see much difference between "God bless America" and "Allahu-Akbar".

Quote[/b] ]There should be a balance between the religious and non-religious sides in the US instead of this one way or another deal. I'm sure there's a compromise somewhere.

The religious side is an extension to the non-religious side. The secular humanist principles are universal - your religion is not. Basically, keep the government and laws free of all religion and let people practice their faith privately as they wish. The government has no business telling the church what to do and the church has no business telling the government what to do.

[Bernadotte 0]

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.

Walker, I'd be really grateful if you could quote the questions I asked and try to answer them directly

rather than address a list of your own questions as if they were mine?

No problem if that's not possible for some reason.  

[Major Fubar 0]

As Bernadotte says, it's always a good idea to quote someone's original text when replying, to help prevent potential misunderstandings.

Just don't forget, if quoting, please remove image tags.  

[Bernadotte 0]

I've been trying to come up with a good ethics question that might be useful when considering some of today's bigger political questions.

You are driving down a hill on a long, straight, wide roadway.  A car ahead of you pulls away from the curb and very slowly gains speed.  You soon realise there's no driver and the car's parking brake must have failed.

A.  What do you do?

1.  Nothing because it's not your problem and I'd have to break the speed limit to catch it.

2.  Quickly pull ahead of the vehicle, carefully let it ease against your car and then apply the brakes.

There is oncoming traffic and/or people walking on the road who you may endanger by driving unsafely, however there is a large crowd of kids playing in the park at the end of the street.

B.  What do you do?

1.  Nothing so that I don't end up responsible for harming other traffic or pedestrians.

2.  Quickly pull ahead of the vehicle hoping that everyone will get out of your way and then carefully stopping the runaway car as described above.

There is oncoming traffic and/or people walking on the road who you may endanger by driving unsafely, but there might be a large crowd of kids playing in the park at the end of the street - you're not sure.

D.  What do you do?

1.  Nothing so that I don't end up responsible for harming other traffic or pedestrians to save people that might not even be there.

2.  Quickly pull ahead of the vehicle hoping that everyone will get out of your way and then carefully stopping the runaway car as described above because your kids might be playing in that park.

[walker 0]

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

Defined term: Temporal, worldly -- (concerned with secular rather than sacred matters; "lords temporal and spiritual")

It comes to a very simple question. Is there temporal action rooted in religious belief that says all non Zionists must be marginalised and destroyed.

Any Zionist sect that says that falls in to that catagory fundaligionist.

As I already said such groups form a very small minority in any belief system. The question is have they got power and do they exercise it?

Having or not having a state is not necasary for funadlaigionism Al Qaida does not have a state it is fundaligionist.

Having a belief that you should have a state is not funaligionist, but having a religious belief that only those of your belief are entitled to live in that state is fundaligionist.

Has religion been married to temporal action to ensure disbelivers (any one not adhering to a very strict and singular interpretation of the religions's tennts) are all marginalised and destroyed? If so then those zionists who fll into that catagory are fundaligionist.

Fundaligionist marries Fundamentalist Religion with temporal action used to exclude and kill off all differing viewpoints; including those of the same belief but differing interpretation. Puritans marginalised catholics as witches and idolators then set up the witch finder general and burnt many at the stake. Aterwards the catholics did it back to them and the Puritan Pilgrim fathers escaped to America to escape the persecution.

The temporal action can be codified in laws or be witch hunts by lynch mobs. Ku Kux Klan the salem witch hunts, Taliban destruction of Buhdist religious sites and destruction shia mosques, Mcartheyism, Maoist Cultural Revolution and Re-education, the communist counter revolution in Barcelonna when the anarchists were killed etc etc.

Expressing a belief even a fundamentalist one that your belief is the only valid one is not fundaligionist. It is only by exersizing temporal actions that this becomes fundaligionist.

Hence study of what is ethical or holding moral beliefs is valid but codifying it in temporal laws for non believers or using morals as a justification to witch hunt is not. And since anyone who trangresses the law is by definition a non beliver such laws cannot even be justified even for believers.

Hence the republican witch hunt of Bill Clinton for not admiting his affair with Monica Lewinsky to the whole world was fundaligionism. A persons's private life is suposed to be private in the US but it was thrown to the four winds. There was no proof that Bill Clinton agreed with the interpretation of what they called moral yet an atempt was made to place a non believer under those Laws.

Now I must admit that NeoConMen conned the religious right into doing their dirty work for them; in that having an affair was actualy not against the law and they new this. So there is some argument to say that it was not fuindaligionism it was infact the tale wagging the dog.

None the less it was that action that realy let the fundaligionists into power in the republican party. In order to placate the monster they have created they must now feed it. The nature of fundaligionism is that it has an unending apetite it eventualy even consumes it self and so will consume the NeoConMen just as easily.

In fact it is the perfect weapon to use against them. All you have to do is say you have not banned abortion yet, why are children being taught they come from monkeys, why are not all children forced to say the lords prayer on entering school, why are wickens allowed to live does it not say "Thou shalt not suffer a Witch to live" in the bible etc etc.

Pretty soon it has pissed off enough of the population for them to revolt.

Bernadotte's Question

Can an individual hold a belief that the Jewish people constitute a nation who were entitled to establish a national homeland in Palestine without being a fundaligionist? Yes of course they can.

You can hold any belief you want.

Can an individual hold a belief that the Jewish people constitute a nation who were entitled to establish a national homeland in Palestine which excludes all other beliefs and enacts laws and actions through witch hunts etc, to achieve those beliefs, without being a fundaligionist? No they can not.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

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.

Then, given your exhaustive definition above of fundaligionism, who are the fundaligionists that you said have invaded the offtopic threads lately?

[FSPilot 0]

Marriage is not a religious union - not the one we're talking about. We're talking about state-issued marriage licenses. Nobody is saying that the church must accept or perform these marriages.

Just like the church should not interfere in state matters, the state has no business interfering in church matters.

I completely agree.  I don't care if they have some state issued marriage.  I don't even recognize that as a real marriage, just a certificate and a name change.  What I don't want is the government mandating that we have to let them get married in our churches.

I'm not arguing that there's no value to religion and that religion should be banned in any way. What I am saying is that there must be a clear separation of church and state. The state must be equal for all its citiziens, regardless of religion. Religious belief is a private matter.

Right, but the state also has to keep it's hands off of the church.  That's part of seperation of church and state too, I think most people have forgotten that.

Legal unions are an attempt to make the religious definition of marriage equal to the legal definition of marriage. The only point of that is to try to breach the separation of church and state. As I said, nobody is trying to force the church to perform gay weddings.

Then I've got nothing else to say.  I simply don't care if they want to go into a city hall and get a certificate.  I just don't want them doing this in my church.

Teaching creationism is no different from teaching that the earth is flat. The theory of evolution is no less supported by fact than the theory that the world is round. If you are claiming to teach the kids science, then you should be teaching the kids science and not religious dogma. This is especially true as different religions have very different views on the world - are you going to teach them all? Because there are people that believe that the earth is flat, do you think we should teach the kids that?

Evolution as a method of explaining the origins of the world is no more a fact than anything.  It's a theory.  And to teach it in place of creationism in schools, which is just a valid explanation as any, shows a bias.  I think schools should just not teach anything about the beginnings of the world.  Since nobody really knows in the first place we wouldn't be losing much. Let the parents do it.

Those things that are specific to a religion and not compatible with a reality free of religious bias should not be taught in school. You have your chuch activities for that, where pastors are free to preach how the earth is 6,000 years old and flat. As such views truly can't be supported by real science, it should not be taught as science.

The way I see it, they're using evolution to replace religion.  They're not teaching it as a scientific alternative, they're teaching it as an "I know you heard this in Sunday school, but here's what really happened" lesson plan.

Heh. From my point of view, you are bordering to religious fundamentalism. While you are not like Iran et al, you are probably closer in that respect to them than to for instance Europe. I really can't see much difference between "God bless America" and "Allahu-Akbar".

Damn straight, I'm a fundie.  Nothing wrong with that either.  I'm not stoning anybody or burning anybody at the stake, just believing what I always have.

The religious side is an extension to the non-religious side. The secular humanist principles are universal - your religion is not. Basically, keep the government and laws free of all religion and let people practice their faith privately as they wish. The government has no business telling the church what to do and the church has no business telling the government what to do.

I agree 100%.

And what is forcing you to let them?

I belive that homosexuals should not marry.  So when the government says I have to let them into my church so they can marry I'm being forced to let them marry.

Unfortunately the ban on gay marriage also applies to marriages performed altogether. Even if it isn't in a church and performed by a justice of the peace as far as I understand.

Which to me seems excessive. It's clearly an agenda that's being pushed to control the way people live their lives in my opinion.

That's the aspect of it that I don't support.  I don't have any problem with two guys having a legal union and getting some tax breaks.  Just don't force me to change my beliefs for it.

[walker 0]

Hi Bernadotte

This would be the most radical example Bush supporter's thread (no liberals allowed)

There are other examples in some of the other threads most apeared in the post US election phase when triumphlist fundlaligionists attempted to bounce people into accepting their interpretation of the world and agree that any other interpretation should not be alowed.

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Can an individual hold a belief that the Jewish people constitute a nation who were entitled to establish a national homeland in Palestine which excludes all other beliefs and enacts laws and actions through witch hunts etc, to achieve those beliefs, without being a fundaligionist? No they can not.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

Excluding all other beliefs and enacting laws and actions through witch hunts etc, to achieve one's beliefs is fundaligionist.  However, dispossession of 3/4 million people because they are not of your faitrh is not fundaligionist.

Must be some really wicked evil people who you saw invading these OT threads recently.  

[walker 0]

Can an individual hold a belief that the Jewish people constitute a nation who were entitled to establish a national homeland in Palestine which excludes all other beliefs and enacts laws and actions through witch hunts etc, to achieve those beliefs, without being a fundaligionist? No they can not.

Ok, now we're getting somewhere.

Excluding all other beliefs and enacting laws and actions through witch hunts etc, to achieve one's beliefs is fundaligionist.  However, dispossession of 3/4 million people because they are not of your faitrh is not fundaligionist.

Must be some really wicked evil people who you saw invading these OT threads recently.  

Hi Bernadotte

Check the double negative.Can they become Israeli's? Fight that one in the courts and you can realy make a diference hint.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA....ity.htm

Kind Regards Walker

[Bernadotte 0]

Can they become Israeli's?

Nope.  Not even if Israel occupies their refugee camps.

In fact they didn't even have to leave the new homeland's borders to remain dispossessed because of their faith.

Fight that one in the courts and you can realy make a diference hint.

According to the ReliefWeb article, it's been done:

Quote[/b] ]Israel also refuses to allow internally displaced Palestinians from Iqrit, Bir'am and al-Ghabsiyya to return to their villages despite Israeli High Court decisions ruling in the favor of Palestinians from these villages.

As you can see, it made as much difference as starting an OT thread against some Republican 'triumphlists'.