Monday, July 03, 2006

I Wish I Said It

... but I didn't.

In a previous post, I commented on the separation of church and state, but my argument centred around how there are as many different moralities as there are flavours of ice cream, and legislating based on one (generally, faith-based) inevitably leads to an unjust situation for those who view it differently.

Socialist Swine takes a different swing:
I don't think that religious convictions should be appealed to influence public policy. Even when that influence is in favour of a position that I agree with. I think that religion should have no direct influence upon government. Policy should never be decided through consideration of religious viewpoints. This is because religious viewpoints (which are to be distinguished by views held by religious people) are in some manner based upon a nonrational belief structure. Faith at its core is not a matter of reason, evidence, argument, or anything of that manner. That doesn't mean that religious folks don't have rational beliefs about their religious views. It's just that views based upon a dogma or doctrine that has at its foundation a nonrational belief about the properties of some supposed deity, at the end of the day, are just suppositions based upon the brute acceptance of some religious position.
An excellent point and one I wish I had thought of.

Tags: , ,

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

What is interesting is that Socialism is a quasi-religion in of itself. Certainly anyone who ever actually interacts with people will have difficulty understanding how Socialists of all stripes think people will adapt to the "program"

A wonderful article can be accessed on this link: Why Isn't Socialism Dead?http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=050506I which spell it out in more detail than I can

Anonymous said...

Politicians don't want a complete ban off religous based moral values in our laws,this is because once we remove the "Thou shalt not kill" concept from a Collective Social conscience to keep the peace.

The Ten Commandments was more like 10-freedoms, just imagine not having to worry about someone trying to hit on your spouse, or someone taking responsibilty for their actions and tell the truth in a Courtroom, or parking your car with the doors unlocked and they keys still in it and it's not stolen when you wake up for work the next day.

The Socialists and secular humanists are a "religeon" unto themselves where THEY try to impose NO moral yardstick as hommage to the God of hedonism.

Riddle me this if you believe the Charter just fell to earth and had no inner moral suasion :

Why is murder against the Law?

Jim said...

The Socialists and secular humanists are a "religeon" unto themselves where THEY try to impose NO moral yardstick

Why is someone who feels no need to impose their morality on others, lacking morality?

Why is murder against the Law?

Murder is against the law because it is unjust. If you allow certain groups to murder others, it creates a society built on distrust, and then no society at all. It predates all religion.

Religion did not invent the crime of murder.

John said...

Whenever Christians vote or act according to their concience they are always smeared by "progressives" as "trying to impose their will upon everyone".

What these "progressives" fail to realize is every time you vote you are, in a small way imposing your will upon everyone. The Christians are the only ones who get attacked for it.

Apparently "progressives" are the only ones allowed to impose thieir will on others.

It doesn't really matter what a bunch of self-styled "progressive" anti-Christian bigots say. My Christian beliefs are a moral yardstick with which I use to make moral decisions. These are *MY* decisions on morality. I don't depend on the whims of a group of lawyers to tell me what is right & wrong.

John said...

It think that Christian voters need to quit mentally apologizing for being what they are and vote MORE according to their concience.

Christian voters must make their stands loudly known on given issues and then let it be known their positions are NON-NEGOTIABLE.
Now, anti-religion types like the owner of this blog can howl, ridicule, name-call and bitch until they're blue in the face but at the end of the day the Christian's position will be the same as at the beginning. There will be issues which ARE up for compromise but Christians MUST REMAIN FIRM ON CERTAIN ONES.
Now, progressive right you may begin Christian bashing.

Brian Lemon said...

If there are: "as many different moralities as there are flavours of ice cream" then are there not also as many different "immoralities"?
Thus if soemone believes that it is moral for he/she to kill, commit adultery, lie, steal, etc. than who is anyone else to say they are wrong.
Secular humanist might not like it much, but the western systems of values and morality do spring from a philosophy that was faith based.
Most westerners choose to accept these morals and values without the faith part. And that's fine, we as a society exist successfully with them - unlike almost all other societies in the world. Thank you Moses, Thank You Jesus for what you gave western society whether or not they believe in you from a faith perspective.

Jim said...

"John" said, My Christian beliefs are a moral yardstick with which I use to make moral decisions. These are *MY* decisions on morality. I don't depend on the whims of a group of lawyers to tell me what is right & wrong.

Your moral yardstick is different than mine. It's better, that the government makes laws that best reflect us, and allow us to live within our own moral yardsticks, instead of imposing my moral yardstick on you (or yours on mine).

Now, anti-religion types like the owner of this blog can howl, ridicule, name-call and bitch until they're blue in the face but at the end of the day the Christian's position will be the same as at the beginning.

Ok ... I don't remember being anti-religion, howling, ridiculing, name-calling, or bitching ... please cite.

There will be issues which ARE up for compromise but Christians MUST REMAIN FIRM ON CERTAIN ONES.

Why is this about Christianity?

Do you expect Muslims and Hindus "to compromise but MUST REMAIN FIRM ON CERTAIN ONES?". I'm thinking you didn't think that far ahead.

Whoops, that's a ridicule.

Jim said...

Brian Lemon said, Thus if soemone believes that it is moral for he/she to kill, commit adultery, lie, steal, etc. than who is anyone else to say they are wrong.

Let me ask you, Brian, is it up to the government to legislate that adultery is illegal?

The government says theft and murder is wrong, because it's unjust - not because someone says it's immoral.