On Rejecting Religious Morals (long post)
-
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” –Galatians 5:13-14
There has been much debate in the holiday season the past few years about the removal of Christ and Christian themes from Christmas celebrations, and from society as a whole the rest of the year. As a Christian I can't say that I am entirely offended. I am grateful to be living in a free and democratic society where people of all faiths can celebrate whatever holidays they desire, without having other faiths thrust upon them. I doubt very much that people living in fundamentalist Islamic countries have such freedoms. If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. Though we don't agree, we must still respect others who have different understandings of God, and religion. To do otherwise is essentially shoving our faith down other people's throats, and I don't think Jesus would want that. We would become no better in the end than the Taliban of Afganistan. God always offers the freedom of choice. Who are we to remove that choice from others? Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness. These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end. They are "religious values" however, and public schools are discouraged from enforcing them, or even suggesting that these traditional notions of morality are still right and good. They are at most, encouraged to tone them down to vague, bland, and inoffensive shadows of the original teachings, lest they be accused of "indoctrinating children with religion". In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. In place of the self-evident laws of goodness and kindness that ought to be cardinal rules of humanity, the pursuit of freedom has led us down the path of self-interest. "If it feels good for me, it's okay, as long as no one is hurt." That seems like a good rule of thumb at first, but eventually when the lines between good and evil are blurred, peop
Kevnar wrote: It needs refinment. I am rather coarse so the essay seemed very fine to me :) However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. You don't seem to be saying that explicitly, but neither are you denying it. Frankly I find that just puts me off totally. I feel one can have very good morals without any religion in ones life and I get quite irate when religious people look down their noses at me in pity because they assume I have no morals. That I am a rutting wild beast. So if you want the essay to reach a wider audience then maybe decouple moral sense from religion.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” –Galatians 5:13-14
There has been much debate in the holiday season the past few years about the removal of Christ and Christian themes from Christmas celebrations, and from society as a whole the rest of the year. As a Christian I can't say that I am entirely offended. I am grateful to be living in a free and democratic society where people of all faiths can celebrate whatever holidays they desire, without having other faiths thrust upon them. I doubt very much that people living in fundamentalist Islamic countries have such freedoms. If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. Though we don't agree, we must still respect others who have different understandings of God, and religion. To do otherwise is essentially shoving our faith down other people's throats, and I don't think Jesus would want that. We would become no better in the end than the Taliban of Afganistan. God always offers the freedom of choice. Who are we to remove that choice from others? Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness. These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end. They are "religious values" however, and public schools are discouraged from enforcing them, or even suggesting that these traditional notions of morality are still right and good. They are at most, encouraged to tone them down to vague, bland, and inoffensive shadows of the original teachings, lest they be accused of "indoctrinating children with religion". In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. In place of the self-evident laws of goodness and kindness that ought to be cardinal rules of humanity, the pursuit of freedom has led us down the path of self-interest. "If it feels good for me, it's okay, as long as no one is hurt." That seems like a good rule of thumb at first, but eventually when the lines between good and evil are blurred, peop
Basically well said. Kevnar wrote: Reject religion if you must for the sake of freedom, but please, for the sake of humanity, retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they teach. Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Kevnar wrote: It needs refinment. I am rather coarse so the essay seemed very fine to me :) However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. You don't seem to be saying that explicitly, but neither are you denying it. Frankly I find that just puts me off totally. I feel one can have very good morals without any religion in ones life and I get quite irate when religious people look down their noses at me in pity because they assume I have no morals. That I am a rutting wild beast. So if you want the essay to reach a wider audience then maybe decouple moral sense from religion.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. You don't seem to be saying that explicitly, but neither are you denying it. Paul, Can you clarify why you feel his statement implies morals are only found in religous people. I did not take it that way. What I read was if you are not religous please base your morals on religious principles. I personally do not feel this is stuffing religion down your throat. It is just asking to have moral values based on something static rather than relativist judgments. Which if the latter is your basis anything that feels good to the people in charge no matter what it does to others is OK. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Kevnar wrote: Special interest groups ?? you mean the NRA, ACLU, NOW ? you are obviously assuming that the only place to learn morailty is from a Christian upbringing. this is a mistake. it implies that 3/4 of the world is immoral; but it's easy to find people who are "moral" who aren't Christian; morality can come from a non-christian source, too. to me, this implies that either all religions inherit from a common base class (CMorality), or that morality itself is independent of religion. i'm betting on the latter. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: to me, this implies that either all religions inherit from a common base class (CMorality), How true! Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabaeans, Those who believe in God and the Last Day And who do well Have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. (Qur'an: 2:62 and 5:69) I'm sure that is the teaching of other religious figures, such as Moses and Jesus too.
-
Paul Watson wrote: However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. You don't seem to be saying that explicitly, but neither are you denying it. Paul, Can you clarify why you feel his statement implies morals are only found in religous people. I did not take it that way. What I read was if you are not religous please base your morals on religious principles. I personally do not feel this is stuffing religion down your throat. It is just asking to have moral values based on something static rather than relativist judgments. Which if the latter is your basis anything that feels good to the people in charge no matter what it does to others is OK. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Paul, Can you clarify why you feel his statement implies morals are only found in religous people I think it is more a case of that is what I am used to from religious people and his statement does not deny it. From that I felt that if he made it clearer that he was not saying only religious people have morals then his message will be more widely accepted. Peoples defenses quickly go up at the slightest provocation or hint of holier than thou attitude. Once they are up though, they are much slower to come down and by then the rest of the message would have been lost or jaded by the conception. Even if it is a misconception. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: What I read was if you are not religous please base your morals on religious principles That brings the defenses up. :) I don't like to be told to base my morals on something I have rejected (though not wholly of course.) This is all very complex and requires a lot more discussion. Essentially though I feel my morals are, as someone else mentioned, based on millenia of communal living. Cause and effect, trial and error. I am not keen on the idea that we need a higher power to hand down morals or tell us what is right and wrong. We are capable of figuring that out ourselves. So when a religious person tells me that I have no morals then I get irate. Also when a religious person says that I should base my morals on their "system" I feel as if they are being patronising, condescending to us poor non-believers. I base my morals on what I see and experience. I put faith in my own capabilities to discern what is right and wrong. I do my best to learn from history and those who are wiser, but also without being totally bound by them for both history and even the wisest are fallible.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
Kevnar wrote: Special interest groups ?? you mean the NRA, ACLU, NOW ? you are obviously assuming that the only place to learn morailty is from a Christian upbringing. this is a mistake. it implies that 3/4 of the world is immoral; but it's easy to find people who are "moral" who aren't Christian; morality can come from a non-christian source, too. to me, this implies that either all religions inherit from a common base class (CMorality), or that morality itself is independent of religion. i'm betting on the latter. -c
Chris Losinger wrote: or that morality itself is independent of religion. i'm betting on the latter. Same here :|
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
Chris Losinger wrote: to me, this implies that either all religions inherit from a common base class (CMorality), How true! Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabaeans, Those who believe in God and the Last Day And who do well Have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. (Qur'an: 2:62 and 5:69) I'm sure that is the teaching of other religious figures, such as Moses and Jesus too.
Fazlul Kabir wrote: Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabaeans, Those who believe in God and the Last Day And who do well Have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. (Qur'an: 2:62 and 5:69) That AND clause is just infuriating. Why should I fear anything if I do well in life but do not believe in "God and the Last Day"? It should be: Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or anyone, Those who do well Have their reward with themselves. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. Why do we need other powers to make us do well, to make us fear if we don't do well? Why do we need other powers to be rewarded? Be true to yourself.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
Basically well said. Kevnar wrote: Reject religion if you must for the sake of freedom, but please, for the sake of humanity, retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they teach. Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. Because "retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they [Christianity] teach." sounds like you are saying that without Christianity or other religions we would not have anything to discern our morals from. Maybe that is not what you intend to mean, but to those of us who are "outside" it certainly does sound like that. You must be careful, we have endured much tongue-lashing from religious people for our choices and so our defenses spring up quickly, sometimes unjustly. Just as your defenses spring up when we tongue-lash your choices.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
Fazlul Kabir wrote: Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or Sabaeans, Those who believe in God and the Last Day And who do well Have their reward with their Lord. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. (Qur'an: 2:62 and 5:69) That AND clause is just infuriating. Why should I fear anything if I do well in life but do not believe in "God and the Last Day"? It should be: Be they Muslims, Jews, Christians, or anyone, Those who do well Have their reward with themselves. They have nothing to fear, And they will not sorrow. Why do we need other powers to make us do well, to make us fear if we don't do well? Why do we need other powers to be rewarded? Be true to yourself.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: Why do we need other powers to make us do well, to make us fear if we don't do well? Why do we need other powers to be rewarded? Assuming there is a God, we need to believe him. God is a moral compass and without him, we will not make it to the final destination. If there were no God, I understand your point.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Paul, Can you clarify why you feel his statement implies morals are only found in religous people I think it is more a case of that is what I am used to from religious people and his statement does not deny it. From that I felt that if he made it clearer that he was not saying only religious people have morals then his message will be more widely accepted. Peoples defenses quickly go up at the slightest provocation or hint of holier than thou attitude. Once they are up though, they are much slower to come down and by then the rest of the message would have been lost or jaded by the conception. Even if it is a misconception. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: What I read was if you are not religous please base your morals on religious principles That brings the defenses up. :) I don't like to be told to base my morals on something I have rejected (though not wholly of course.) This is all very complex and requires a lot more discussion. Essentially though I feel my morals are, as someone else mentioned, based on millenia of communal living. Cause and effect, trial and error. I am not keen on the idea that we need a higher power to hand down morals or tell us what is right and wrong. We are capable of figuring that out ourselves. So when a religious person tells me that I have no morals then I get irate. Also when a religious person says that I should base my morals on their "system" I feel as if they are being patronising, condescending to us poor non-believers. I base my morals on what I see and experience. I put faith in my own capabilities to discern what is right and wrong. I do my best to learn from history and those who are wiser, but also without being totally bound by them for both history and even the wisest are fallible.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: Peoples defenses quickly go up at the slightest provocation or hint of holier than thou attitude. Understand. I have my sensitivities also. Paul Watson wrote: I put faith in my own capabilities to discern what is right and wrong. I do my best to learn from history and those who are wiser, but also without being totally bound by them for both history and even the wisest are fallible. We are very unlikely to sway one another here but it is the basis for my disagreement with what I take to be "your view". (I hope that is readable.:-O) If this was at all easy to accomplish (or learn) we would not have "evil regime" after "evil regime" popping up. Just look at the 20th century alone. Yes this is just IMO. Take care and have a good day.:) "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Paul, Can you clarify why you feel his statement implies morals are only found in religous people I think it is more a case of that is what I am used to from religious people and his statement does not deny it. From that I felt that if he made it clearer that he was not saying only religious people have morals then his message will be more widely accepted. Peoples defenses quickly go up at the slightest provocation or hint of holier than thou attitude. Once they are up though, they are much slower to come down and by then the rest of the message would have been lost or jaded by the conception. Even if it is a misconception. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: What I read was if you are not religous please base your morals on religious principles That brings the defenses up. :) I don't like to be told to base my morals on something I have rejected (though not wholly of course.) This is all very complex and requires a lot more discussion. Essentially though I feel my morals are, as someone else mentioned, based on millenia of communal living. Cause and effect, trial and error. I am not keen on the idea that we need a higher power to hand down morals or tell us what is right and wrong. We are capable of figuring that out ourselves. So when a religious person tells me that I have no morals then I get irate. Also when a religious person says that I should base my morals on their "system" I feel as if they are being patronising, condescending to us poor non-believers. I base my morals on what I see and experience. I put faith in my own capabilities to discern what is right and wrong. I do my best to learn from history and those who are wiser, but also without being totally bound by them for both history and even the wisest are fallible.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: only religious people have morals Everyone has their own morals. Some people take up the religios morals, others make up their own. Being non-religious does not make you immoral and being religious doesn't necessarily mean you will be moral. Religious people believe our most sacred morals were given to us by God (even before the 10 commandments). I believe most people inherently know societal morals yet many reject them anyway.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Paul Watson wrote: Why do we need other powers to make us do well, to make us fear if we don't do well? Why do we need other powers to be rewarded? Assuming there is a God, we need to believe him. God is a moral compass and without him, we will not make it to the final destination. If there were no God, I understand your point.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: If there were no God, I understand your point. I no longer believe in God(s).
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
Jason Henderson wrote: If there were no God, I understand your point. I no longer believe in God(s).
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: I no longer believe in God(s). Just because Paul Watson doesn't believe, does that mean there isn't one? Remember that most religious people are probably just concerned about your wellbeing. They aren't trying to make you feel uncomfortable or shameful, they just want you to know what they think everyone should know.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism * -
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. Because "retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they [Christianity] teach." sounds like you are saying that without Christianity or other religions we would not have anything to discern our morals from. Maybe that is not what you intend to mean, but to those of us who are "outside" it certainly does sound like that. You must be careful, we have endured much tongue-lashing from religious people for our choices and so our defenses spring up quickly, sometimes unjustly. Just as your defenses spring up when we tongue-lash your choices.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: sounds like you are saying that without Christianity or other religions we would not have anything to discern our morals from. I am saying that no one has shown me that with out religious principles involved, morals are not based on anything that is absolute. To me this implies that morals are then only what the current society feels are good. "I will find a new sig someday."
-
Basically well said. Kevnar wrote: Reject religion if you must for the sake of freedom, but please, for the sake of humanity, retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they teach. Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. Being a Christian myself I'd like to play devil's advocate here. What many non-religious people may feel is that the line : "for the sake of humanity, retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they teach" implies that only religious instructions have static morals values. Having many non-religious friends and family members I know this is not the case. Also, in their shoes I'd find this offending as well as condescending. Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
-
Paul Watson wrote: Peoples defenses quickly go up at the slightest provocation or hint of holier than thou attitude. Understand. I have my sensitivities also. Paul Watson wrote: I put faith in my own capabilities to discern what is right and wrong. I do my best to learn from history and those who are wiser, but also without being totally bound by them for both history and even the wisest are fallible. We are very unlikely to sway one another here but it is the basis for my disagreement with what I take to be "your view". (I hope that is readable.:-O) If this was at all easy to accomplish (or learn) we would not have "evil regime" after "evil regime" popping up. Just look at the 20th century alone. Yes this is just IMO. Take care and have a good day.:) "I will find a new sig someday."
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: If this was at all easy to accomplish (or learn) we would not have "evil regime" after "evil regime" popping up. Just look at the 20th century alone Indeed I agree it is not easy and from the looks of things the 20th and present centuries are humans taking some terrible blind alleys in their exploration of for one thing morals. Because I do not believe in God(s) I do not have a heirarchacal view of humanity. I see it driving itself forward with a multitude of forks. The forks represent everything from the USA to North Korea to China to Europe to Africa. Each one is a subset of humanity exploring, probing and defining paths. Many of our current forks are quite scary and seemingly dead ends. Hopefully they will merge with the better forks or divert to an entirely new, and better, direction. To me, this is a more rewarding and ultimately better model than being led by a greater power. It is like the difference between being told the results of an expirement in school, or finding out yourself. The latter being more beneficial, instilling better things in oneself. Those experiments I did myself in school have stuck with me far longer than the ones only the teacher told us the results of. Michael A. Barnhart wrote: We are very unlikely to sway one another here but it is the basis for my disagreement with what I take to be "your view". On the whole religious theme I am very open as I often envy people with faith. So any logical, well thought out and provable (though I don't need physical evidence) part you can explain to me I will be more than happy to accept.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
Paul Watson wrote: I no longer believe in God(s). Just because Paul Watson doesn't believe, does that mean there isn't one? Remember that most religious people are probably just concerned about your wellbeing. They aren't trying to make you feel uncomfortable or shameful, they just want you to know what they think everyone should know.
Jason Henderson
start page ; articles henderson is coming henderson is an opponent's worst nightmare * googlism *Jason Henderson wrote: Just because Paul Watson doesn't believe, does that mean there isn't one? Indeed and I would be very disapointed in anyone who thought "Paul Watson does not think there is a God, so I don't either." I was just showing you were I am coming from with all of this. That my arguements are from someone who does not believe in God(s). Jason Henderson wrote: Remember that most religious people are probably just concerned about your wellbeing I should know, my sister is very concerned. I appreciate her, and others, concern. But oft times it becomes overbearing, almost to the point of saying that I am a lost soul who is damned forever. In my heart and mind I am quite content and so take mild offence when others put me in the Lost Soul bin. I do not need anybodies concerns on the matter and have made it clear to those who are. If they continue being concerned then I get a bit annoyed, perfectly normal. :)
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
Michael A. Barnhart wrote: Now how do others claim you are forcing Christianity down their throats from this? You are just asking to have moral values based on something other than relativist judgments. Being a Christian myself I'd like to play devil's advocate here. What many non-religious people may feel is that the line : "for the sake of humanity, retain the fundamental moral values of right and wrong that they teach" implies that only religious instructions have static morals values. Having many non-religious friends and family members I know this is not the case. Also, in their shoes I'd find this offending as well as condescending. Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. Fill me with your knowledge, your wisdom, your coffee.
Chris Austin wrote: Strong convictions are not the sole property of the religious. Amen! errr, I mean right on! :-D Well said.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
-
“You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire law is summed up in a single command: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” –Galatians 5:13-14
There has been much debate in the holiday season the past few years about the removal of Christ and Christian themes from Christmas celebrations, and from society as a whole the rest of the year. As a Christian I can't say that I am entirely offended. I am grateful to be living in a free and democratic society where people of all faiths can celebrate whatever holidays they desire, without having other faiths thrust upon them. I doubt very much that people living in fundamentalist Islamic countries have such freedoms. If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. Though we don't agree, we must still respect others who have different understandings of God, and religion. To do otherwise is essentially shoving our faith down other people's throats, and I don't think Jesus would want that. We would become no better in the end than the Taliban of Afganistan. God always offers the freedom of choice. Who are we to remove that choice from others? Special interest groups tend to throw the baby out with the bath water, however, in rejecting universal laws of goodness and morality just because they happen to be religiously based teachings. Pure love, giving, sharing, forgiveness, kindness, humility, self-control, honesty, and faithfulness. These values, if adhered to, will lead one toward a more peaceful and happy life in the end. They are "religious values" however, and public schools are discouraged from enforcing them, or even suggesting that these traditional notions of morality are still right and good. They are at most, encouraged to tone them down to vague, bland, and inoffensive shadows of the original teachings, lest they be accused of "indoctrinating children with religion". In the exaltation of freedom of choice, the tendency is to remove any kind of moral absolute. In place of the self-evident laws of goodness and kindness that ought to be cardinal rules of humanity, the pursuit of freedom has led us down the path of self-interest. "If it feels good for me, it's okay, as long as no one is hurt." That seems like a good rule of thumb at first, but eventually when the lines between good and evil are blurred, peop
Kevnar wrote: If we Christians expect to have the freedom to practice our faith as we chose, we must also extend this freedom to others who don't follow our particular brand of faith. I agree. Other religions are wrong, but then so are most 'christians'. However, freedom to choose is obviously part of God's plan or we would not have so many alternatives. Kevnar wrote: Children are no longer being taught right and wrong in schools however, in fear that they be considered religious teachings. So where will they learn it? At home, of course !!! Anyone who trusted schools ever to teach their kids values is a moron. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002 -
Kevnar wrote: It needs refinment. I am rather coarse so the essay seemed very fine to me :) However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. You don't seem to be saying that explicitly, but neither are you denying it. Frankly I find that just puts me off totally. I feel one can have very good morals without any religion in ones life and I get quite irate when religious people look down their noses at me in pity because they assume I have no morals. That I am a rutting wild beast. So if you want the essay to reach a wider audience then maybe decouple moral sense from religion.
Paul Watson
Bluegrass
Cape Town, South AfricaPaul Watson wrote: "The Labia [cinema]... ...was opened by Princess Labia in May 1949..." Christian Graus wrote: See, I told you it was a nice name for a girl...
Paul Watson wrote: However one feeling I came away with was that you were just encouraging the concept that only religious people have morals to teach and live by. I agree, this is a dangerous mistake to make. There are plenty of moral athiests and plenty of amoral people who claim religion. Christian No offense, but I don't really want to encourage the creation of another VB developer. - Larry Antram 22 Oct 2002
C# will attract all comers, where VB is for IT Journalists and managers - Michael P Butler 05-12-2002
Again, you can screw up a C/C++ program just as easily as a VB program. OK, maybe not as easily, but it's certainly doable. - Jamie Nordmeyer - 15-Nov-2002