[comment on book "A Charter On Negative Liberties"]
Morality is a concrete thing. It doesn't vary with the whims of a society. If we acknowledge that rights are granted by God (Declaration of Independence), then the same God has cast morality in stone. It is written on the heart of every human being. Furthermore, morality and worship are two entirely different things. God gave us free will, but He also gave us government to curb destructive behavior. See Romans 13.
A Muslim has a right to go to a mosque on Friday and worship there. He has no right to impose Shari'a law on the nation. Observe the distinction. Shari'a law is a moral system. It is not God's morality because of the egregious and unjust penalties it imposes. And it is not a form of worship. Our notion of liberty is founded in the Judeo-Christian consensus. Hindus see nothing wrong with taking a young girl to a temple and forcing her to become a prostitute. We know this is an egregious violation of that child's rights, and we do not permit that here. Morality is something very specific, and the mere fact that some people do not understand clearly what it is, or choose to ignore their own consciences doesn't mean that we don't have a duty to maintain the very fabric of society upon which our freedoms are based.
The organic law which the Founders left us is most CERTAINLY FULL of morality. The very idea of stating that rights come from the Creator is a moral statement. If we can ignore morality when it comes to harmful activity, then we undermine the very basis of our freedoms. I believe you have not thought through the implications of what you wrote, and I am challenging you to do so.
God dictates morality, not the federal government or any other government. When a government attempts to contravene God's moral law, that's dictating morality, even IF it appears it is granting freedom. Licentiousness enslaves on the most basic level. A licentious nation cannot maintain freedom.
45 comments
"If we acknowledge that rights are granted by God (Declaration of Independence),"
The dumbass believes a deity wrote the Declaration?
Umm, you do realize that the Declaration Of Independence is nothing more than a letter written to the King, right? The Constitution, on the other hand, makes zero mention of your silly god, or morality. I love how the founders did that to you!
Please stop being an idiot.
The OT and Sharia are much more alike in their "morality" than you'd like to acknowledge, stupid. The "egregious and unjust penalties" are very similar.
Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the same deity, stupid. If something is founded in the Judeo-Christian consensus, it also includes Muslim consensus.
Christians see nothing wrong in forcing a woman to marry her rapist. We know this is an egregious violation of that woman's rights.
The trouble is, even among Christians, morality is subjective. For example, is it moral to drink alcohol? A Baptist would say no. A Catholic would say yes.
Also, the United States wasn't founded upon Christianity, etc. Not that it matters because they won't listen at all, but just thought I'd throw that out there anyway.
Morality is a concrete thing. It doesn't vary with the whims of a society. Except my society.
It is written on the heart of every human being, except for heathen human beings.
A christian has a right to go to a church on sunday and worship there. He has no right to impose bible law on the nation. Observe the distinction. Bible law is a moral system. It is not Allahs morality because of the egregious and unjust penalties it imposes. And it is not a form of worship.
Christians see nothing wrong in outlawing lifesaving surgeries and risking womens lives because the surgery that will save them is forbidden by their so called god. We know this is an egregious violation that womans rights, we do not permit that here.
Allah dictates morality, not the federal government or any other government. When a government attempts to contravene Allah's moral law, that's dictating morality, even IF it appears it is granting freedom. Licentiousness enslaves on the most basic level. A licentious nation cannot maintain freedom.
So... You claim morality is concrete, imprinted onto people by God, and societies cannot change it. You then go on to outline that different societies have different standards of morality, invalidating your first four sentences entirely. Bravo.
"He has no right to impose Shari'a law on the nation."
Nor do Christians have the right to impose their religious rights on any nation.
The Qur'an is just as valid as the bible. Both are claimed to be the word of God with equal lack of proof on both sides. (Regardless of what YOU claim the Declaration of Independence says. I'm not American, but I don't believe there is any mention of God in the DOI or the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Whose God? I'm well aware that you mean the Christian God but which Christian God? The Baptist one? The Catholic one? The Lutheran God? The Mormon God(s)? The Unitarian Universalist one? Actually, the Unitarian Universalist God DOES kind of match the founding principles of the US (at least moreso than any of the others) but you don't quite sound like a Unitarian Universalist. So which God is it? Because they're all quite different.
So Pat, if morality is from the christian god, then can we stone you for wearing a poly-cotton t-shirt, while eating lobster during your lunch break on a saturday afternoon?
"Nature's God" and "Creator" is the god of The Declaration of Independence, and is a rather vague reference to a diety at best.
A Muslim has a right to go to a mosque on Friday and worship there. He has no right to impose Shari'a law on the nation
Riiiight, apparently you forgot what you wrote in the first paragraph. A Christian has a right to go to a church on Sunday and worship there. He has no right to impose Christianity on the nation. See my point?
Also, Prove your God dictates morality.
Edit: And please explain all that genocidal mayhem in the Old Testament if God is so moral.
Soooooo much fail, particularly regarding concrete morality. Every society has its own morals, and that set of morals will not be identical to any other. Even in the same society morality can differ between individuals; racists believe it's perfectly okay to discriminate against people not of their race, while non-racists don't.
"If we can ignore morality when it comes to harmful activity, then we undermine the very basis of our freedoms."
Yes... and YOU ignore the morality of forcing a rape victim to marry her rapist... or eating shrimp... or wearing clothing of mixed fibres... or rebelling against the king.
Funny how the USA is completely immoral from the word go... including that Declaration of Independence you like so much. It's completely against the morality that your God dictated... When you come on back under British rule, then you can start pontificating about morality.
"Morality is a concrete thing."
Instant fail.
Death: Humans need fantasy to *be* human. To be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765458/quotes
Now find me some morality using the same process.
"Morality is a concrete thing. It doesn't vary with the whims of a society."
So human slavery is and has always been unvaryingly moral, and the current legal prohibitions against it just represents contemporary society acting on a whim?
no its not. morality is relative to the society in which one lives.
American constitution. Muslims have the same rights of assembly and worship as anyone else. Law is set by congress and the senate, no one else.
It is not God's morality because of the egregious and unjust penalties it imposes.
That's funny. I thought Mohammad and the Hadith took most of those punishments directly from the Old Testament.
Hindus see nothing wrong with taking a young girl to a temple and forcing her to become a prostitute.
The Bible sees nothing wrong with selling ones daughter as a slave. In fact, it even provides for a "return policy" and a "restocking fee" for returning her in used condition.
(OP)
If.
"Morality is a concrete thing. It doesn't vary with the whims of a society."
In that case we should still have slaves in America. Christians and Jews should still be killing people for adultery and apostasy. It would still be acceptable to beat your wife if she looks at you wrong. Genocide in the name of god would be perfectly acceptable. Do I need to go on?
Isn't it funny how the morality of your religion tends to adapt with the morality of society?
The thing is, the authors of the declaration of independence etc. were not Biblical fundamentalists, just sort of vague deists. If they wanted the Bible to be the law, why didn't they unambiguously state that that's what they wanted?
"God has cast morality in stone."
Which is why He keeps changing his mind about it every two seconds.
Yet more evidence that Christians don't read the Bible. (As if it were not blindingly obvious already).
Morality is somewhat objective, but it is not fully objective nor "very very specific". There are tough questions on morality, and things that can't easily be compared. First though morality is about maximizing good for other people, and minimizing harm. This is along the lines of the Bible's "love thy neighbor", but you don't need to believe in a God to believe that.
Needs vary and change over time, and so as people's needs change so does morality.
Your religion gets objective morality wrong. For example, slavery. It unquestionably does harm to other people that is not outweighed by any 'benefit'. If we're to believe your religion slavery is OK. Slavery was immoral even when society approved of it, because it still caused untold misery and suffering to people during that time. It's disturbing to read some of the comments here that suggest there is no objective morality at all. The implication of that would be that people who helped runaway slaves were immoral. Society may have considered them immoral at the time, but society was wrong.
A society that sanctions slavery is wrong, and if possible ought to be forced from within or if that's not possible then from other more enlightened societies if necessary to stop slavery.
Moral relativism rather than recognizing there is an objective, secular basis for morality based on social help and harm risks leading people into practicing a false "might is right" morality.
@Farpadokly: It probably doesn't help that a good chunk of what's protected under freedom's aegis in religiously neutral societies is regarded by fundamentalists as ENSLAVING oneself to base impulses. Think in terms of "my yoke is light"; the implication is that to EXIST is to be under some sort of yoke, so the only real choice is a light yoke (divine control that knows foresight) or a heavy yoke (basal control that keeps messing up and making things worse).
A certain resident lolcow, by the name of Troll/Poe/Nuts4Life once thought as you did. But once she realised the facts about the Founding Fathers, and their actual motives, re. the 'Christian' US Constitution, she changed her mind about Jefferson, Madison, Franklin et al.
...as in they'd apparently forgotten to include the words 'God', 'Jesus', 'Creator', and 'Marriage' within such.
And if you'd ever read your Constitution, you'd know that the 10th Amendment states that unless there's a specific law prohibiting such behaviour, you can do what the fuck you like. Morals enough -with no 'God' required? You decide...!
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
