Pledge of Allegiance IS Unconstitutional!!!!!!!!!!!!

[plornive]

Re: Re: my evidence for a divine entity through philospohy...

This point is particularly relevant to the original topic of this thread. It begs me to ask:
Do we need religion for society to be in harmony? AND
Is a uniform moral code everyone follows possible without religion? AND
Is morality rational without religion?

These are sociological questions to me. Just imagine a society with no religion, look at the history of political ideologies, etc. These questions are basically not related to religion.

I will give my thoughts on these in a few minutes.

These are short answers...

And my first name is Ben.

I think that we probably still need religion to keep order, peace and harmony. I think religion was necessary throughout most of history. It was a necessary modus operandi of conformity. It is also unlikely that people would have been satisfied with NO explanation of existence. Science is begining to attempt to explain some questions of existence. It has succeeded in replacing old incorrect ideas with new apparently more correct ideas.

I think a uniform moral code is possible without religion. I think it may take a long time to develop such a system, however. Writings on liberalism (CLASSICAL liberalism) touch on this a little bit, but obviously not enough. As the world becomes multicultural, it may be useful to develop multicultural ethics --- a sort of code of honor that people have. A NEW modus operandi of conformity.

I value society. I am a conformist in many ways like most other people. I want to be respected. I want to be a part of society. I want good things to happen to other people. These are all rational thoughts. They create the backbone to my sense of morality. I dislike stealing because it causes emotional pain to our society. I value our society. I can't explain this precisely, just like I can't explain the love I feel towards my mother. We are social beings.

The difficult part is drawing the line in the grey areas. Religion does this very well within each particular religion, but now we live in societies with many different lines drawn in the grey areas --- religion is failing to precisely define morality in each society.

I admit that some of these questions do indeed very directly involve religion.

 

[plornive]

what happens when different religions have different ideas of who this God is and what he really does?

This is why I believe that the religions of today need to be replaced. Religion no longer keeps peace through conformity --- it divides people through conformity within each religion.

We no longer live in predominantly culturally homogenous societies. Why would we continue to act as if we do by perpetuating old religions?

 

[rotovibe]

human-spirit.jpg


Do we need religion for society to be in harmony? AND
Is a uniform moral code everyone follows possible without religion? AND
Is morality rational without religion?

These are sociological questions to me. Just imagine a society with no religion, look at the history of political ideologies, etc. These questions are basically not related to religion.

I will give my thoughts on these in a few minutes.

Very good questions. But first we need to define religion.
we'll use the webster def:

'Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe'

we also need to define society:

'A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture'

morality:
'The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct'

Do we need religion for society to be in harmony?
-in essence, I think, no, based on the definitions. But harmony is a state of being. What I mean to say is we don't know for how long. We can get along for one minute then you hate me because I stole your radio the next. We have to factor in the fact that we have selfish motives. We always want the better bike, better girl, better job...society , heck America proves that. I think this applies to all demographics. There has to be a moral imparative, unwavering in it's standards. If not we will live in anarchy. Religion seems to provide that because it's the only institution that boldly claims absolutes. People either love it or hate it.

Is morality rational without religion?
- based on morality's definition, there has to be standards of right or good conduct. Who sets these standards? You, me, happyscrappy? What if someone from an eastern thought came over and said I don't believe in love, it doesn't exist. How would we answer that? We cannot think of morality ourselves because we are not greater than our existance. We are finite. These feelings like love, respect, a notion of a higher power all come from outside of us. Someone didn't tell me about love, I was born KNOWING it.(incidentally, I learned to hate from knowing what love is). So I would have to say that morality isn't rational without religion because we need to aknowledge a higher power from which it originates in order to know what morality is.

Stalin imagined a society without religion, China did as well...but the human spirit cannot be quelched.

 

[rotovibe]

"Religion no longer keeps peace through conformity "
very good assesment...yes that is very evident since we are so multicultural.
From a governmental stand point you can easily see that. But it's a catch 22... gotta go! I'll probably get back with an answer later this evening. I'm going to a concert. chaio'
Laters Ben...good posts bro!

 

[rotovibe]

interesting post smegma, I'd like to know how you think morality can be defined...remember morality has to be universal, something that everyone inately will know...because a person can easily disregard your moral definition. It has to transcend subjectivity in order for it to be a moral, otherwise it's just an opinion...

 

[plornive]

Re: human-spirit.jpg

Do we need religion for society to be in harmony? AND
Is a uniform moral code everyone follows possible without religion? AND
Is morality rational without religion?

These are sociological questions to me. Just imagine a society with no religion, look at the history of political ideologies, etc. These questions are basically not related to religion.

I will give my thoughts on these in a few minutes.

Very good questions. But first we need to define religion.
we'll use the webster def:

'Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe'

we also need to define society:

'A group of humans broadly distinguished from other groups by mutual interests, participation in characteristic relationships, shared institutions, and a common culture'

morality:
'The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct'

Do we need religion for society to be in harmony?
-in essence, I think, no, based on the definitions. But harmony is a state of being. What I mean to say is we don't know for how long. We can get along for one minute then you hate me because I stole your radio the next. We have to factor in the fact that we have selfish motives. We always want the better bike, better girl, better job...society , heck America proves that. I think this applies to all demographics. There has to be a moral imparative, unwavering in it's standards. If not we will live in anarchy. Religion seems to provide that because it's the only institution that boldly claims absolutes. People either love it or hate it.

Is morality rational without religion?
- based on morality's definition, there has to be standards of right or good conduct. Who sets these standards? You, me, happyscrappy? What if someone from an eastern thought came over and said I don't believe in love, it doesn't exist. How would we answer that? We cannot think of morality ourselves because we are not greater than our existance. We are finite. These feelings like love, respect, a notion of a higher power all come from outside of us. Someone didn't tell me about love, I was born KNOWING it.(incidentally, I learned to hate from knowing what love is). So I would have to say that morality isn't rational without religion because we need to aknowledge a higher power from which it originates in order to know what morality is.

Stalin imagined a society without religion, China did as well...but the human spirit cannot be quelched.

Good points.

I see now that my answers to these questions are easily explained using your points (3, 5, 8 and 10). For instance, I think you might say that the appreciation I have for society is an absolute that is not just a result of biology and sociology.

Furthermore, your idea of consciousness could also discredit any biological theory.

I aknowledge that these are intelligent points and I have heard most of them before. I will just say that I look at my own consciousness the same way as I look at the can of Diet Mountain Dew in front of me.

 

[rotovibe]

smegma please read my previous posts at least with the definitions of religion and morals...no it doesn't have to be called the bible in order for it to be true...I don't specify any religious preference when I write...you can name it the torah if you want...but I want you to answer my question...were do you think morals come from and why?
Note: I haven't made any personal stabs at your religious or areligious beliefs. I'd appreciate it if you keep it that way. If you think that my leanings toward a hgiher power for these anwers are stupid , then please, feel free to give me evidence of alternate moral derivations. Don't believe a higher power makes morals? Fine. Then what does? You have the floor.

 

[plornive]

I think my favorite solution in its own historical context to date is confucianism.

It worked very well. It defined relationships, which is what society and governance is based on. It did not necessitate a belief in a god or spirit.

It promoted the belief that its definitions of good and bad were inherent, but it also explained how these conclusions were reached in a conceptual fashion.

 

[decem]

Re: in addressing the God influence in our government...

We have to understand that we all live under a moral law. Atheist, post-modern thinkers, relativists must answer this question… can we run an effective government on subjective criteria? Probably not…because someone’s morals may be different from another person’s. If you purport relativist laws who will abide by them? I don’t have to. What if killing your child is a moral imparative for me? Would you hate me or respect my views?


alan derschowitz once said something to the extent of this: "i see more morality in a person who does not believe in god and who is ethical and has good moral values than one who is moral and ethical out of a fear of god." (something like that.. i forget the exact quote.. you get the gist of it though.)

all our laws are already relativist and are carried out and interpreted in a relativist manner.


Society runs on moral standards, I don’t care who you are or what you believe you abide by them. Man didn’t create them…psychopaths have admitted guilt and wrong doing on several occasions…even THEY are atune to these STANDARDS.


WRONG.. man did create them. culture and society creates moral standards. period.


What our ancestors realized is that no man is fit to set a standard law. Man is fallable. They must look towards a governing authority for influence and pattern their articles to that standard. That standard happens to be the CHRISTIAN GOD and His revelations through a collective of manuscripts called the septuagint, and later the BIBLE.


um.. so this christian god sat down and wrote the bible right? mmmmmkay.. *cuckoo's nest.. cuckoo's nest*

man wrote the bible. no other entity than mankind grants and restricts human behavior. none. when someone is doing "wrong" i don't see a god come down here and smack their bottom; man comes by and handcuffs them.


So in essence, our governmental system is based on Moral absolutes (don’t kill, steal, etc…) which so happens to be influenced by the christian God. And rightly so.

IF THERE IS A MORAL LAW. THERE IS A MORAL LAW GIVER.

Governments have to be run with absolutes, that’s how you govern.



our government is based upon the writers' of the constitution morals which is now interpreted and administered by the morals of those in government today. morals change. there is no absolute moral law and no absolute moral law giver.



If we dessolve these absolutes we wouldn’t have any basis for a functioning government.

um dude.. if it was an absolute.. it wouldn't be able to dissolve.. BUSTED!!


IMO, quibbling over mandates such as wether or not to say “under God” is not the issue.

Dying for our country, as honorable as that is, isn’t the issue either. Believe me, I am very greatful for the personal sacrifice that each of you committed to give someone like me freedom in this country.

got that right.


The issue at hand is important enough for the government to address. I don’t think this country’s problems (even the world) can be fixed through government mandates. It has to start with the individual. It all leads to those MORAL ABSOLUTES. The government can only pass laws that will potentially offend people, it will always do that. In order to fix our present situation is to examine those MORAL ABSOLUTES and their application in our lives. It is how we raise our kids. It’s how we treat our wives and husbands. And to perpetuate those absolutes…

you will never be able to instill morals in a person. you will never be able to fully inhibit what "evils" lie within them. just as religions have failed time and time again to truly shape the inner being of its followers, resulting in their settling for shaping the behavior of them instead (not that they do a good job either).. people are shaped from what's already in them, something untouchable, as well as their experiences with their surroundings in life, but only to a certain degree.

what i just wrote seems contradictory at first, but it truly is not. if i had more time to write or if i was less tired i'd explain further. i do think that i'll bump one of my threads for you though. please read it when you get a chance; i'd love to see your input.


Atheism cannot run America, relativist theories will not run this country.


so what can run america? note - if you say christianity i'll fucking puke.

 

[decem]

I am not talking about death---I am talking about judgement day baby!!!

every knee shall bow and every tongue shall confess that Jesus Christ is Lord---and it wont be up for discussion or debate.

just like the tongues of all those poor catholic kids that kissed jesus under their priests robes eh?


dude.. you're a fucking quack..