SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Nov 13 2008 09:35 pm

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081113/ap_on_re_us/obama_catholics

Short story is that Catholics at one church in South Carolina would be denied the stuff for communion because they voted for a very pro-abortion president.

Docinsano's Channel 63 · Posted: Nov 13 2008 10:30 pm

This is fucked up. Religion and politics need to be separate from each other. Religion should have no effect on your political views, and your political views should not effect your religion. Government and religion just don't mix...

Banned Joined: Sep 13 2008 Posts: 3129

this is BS

Docinsano's Channel 63 · Posted: Nov 13 2008 10:39 pm

OMG I HAD BETTER GO TO CHURCH AND REPENT FOR VOTING AGAINST THE CATHOLIC CHURCH!!!!!!!!!

Posted: Nov 13 2008 10:46 pm

docinsano wrote:

Religion should have no effect on your political views, and your political views should not effect your religion.

Impossible. Religion is employed in most cases to give a set of beliefs to people, so naturally, they're going to respect those beliefs in terms of who they vote for and whatnot. I agree they should be completely separate, but it's unlikely to happen completely. I mean, if you think about it, religion is sort of a faith-based government. You have rules and if you break them and you pay.

Posted: Nov 13 2008 11:08 pm

docinsano wrote:

This is fucked up. Religion and politics need to be separate from each other. Religion should have no effect on your political views, and your political views should not effect your religion. Government and religion just don't mix...

Ryconna already mentioned this, but this is impossible. Your religious views and political views are both aspects of your view of the world as a whole. Unless you're bipolar or have dissociative disorder, there's no way to reconcile conflicting religious and political views.

Posted: Nov 13 2008 11:10 pm

Religion and politicsl candidates are a lot alike. You're not going to agree with everything that one says, and you shouldn't be punished for it.

Punishing the faithful for voting for a pro-abortion president is dumb, and my Catholic church of choice would never do that. Instead of alienating people who actually show for church, they should be reaching out for new members. And if they don't like Obama's stance on abortion, lobby against it. But you can't punish a person by proxy for their candidate's views on abortion. Abortion is obviously a very serious issue to the Church, but it was not a major issue in the presidential campaign. The only issue in this campaign was the economy.

Docinsano's Channel 63 · Posted: Nov 13 2008 11:16 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Ryconna already mentioned this, but this is impossible. Your religious views and political views are both aspects of your view of the world as a whole. Unless you're bipolar or have dissociative disorder, there's no way to reconcile conflicting religious and political views.

Well then, you must agree that it would be ideal for religion and gov't to be separate, right? Religion to me is more of an explanation of the mysteries of the world, not a real "view" (think of the whole "3rd eye" thing) of the world as you may see it. Religion is mystery, and no 2 religious views (or political views, for that matter) are alike. My opinions and beliefs are from my own mind, not from the faith I have chosen. I never let my religion tell me who to vote for.

I believe there is a way for this to happen, (government being separate from religion) but it will never happen in my lifetime...

Posted: Nov 13 2008 11:45 pm

docinsano wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Ryconna already mentioned this, but this is impossible. Your religious views and political views are both aspects of your view of the world as a whole. Unless you're bipolar or have dissociative disorder, there's no way to reconcile conflicting religious and political views.

Well then, you must agree that it would be ideal for religion and gov't to be separate, right? Religion to me is more of an explanation of the mysteries of the world, not a real "view" (think of the whole "3rd eye" thing) of the world as you may see it. Religion is mystery, and no 2 religious views (or political views, for that matter) are alike. My opinions and beliefs are from my own mind, not from the faith I have chosen. I never let my religion tell me who to vote for.

I believe there is a way for this to happen, (government being separate from religion) but it will never happen in my lifetime...

Why must I agree to that? I think it's the exact opposite of what I said is possible. Besides, our laws have to come from somewhere, which is our society's agreed upon code of ethics. Religion is where we generally get our codes of ethics. Without religion, there's very little basis for what's moral and immoral, and thus legal and illegal. Now in the year 2008 we all agree that people have rights, but why do we have those rights? If we discard religion entirely, we're left with natural law, since humans are animals. The thing is, there's no real definition or standards for natural law. I could argue that under natural law I should be allowed to kill my boss to prove that I'm the dominate male, like many animals such as polar bears or lions do.

I discussed this in another forum, but was much more coherent. I'm sleep tonight.

Posted: Nov 13 2008 11:49 pm

Seperation of Church and State means that the government does not represent any religion.

The reverse is a bit harder to enforce. I mean, as rycona pointed out, if a religion has a prohibition on a behavior they will want to vote that way. And the catholic church does have the right to point out which candidates support the death penalty for example.

Furthermore, the church is fully within its power to deny any religious whatsits to anyone they like. That includes communion, church sponsored marriages, babtismals, whatever. The church could very well say that black people can no longer take communion because Jesus had no black apostles. They would catch a lot of flak, but they could.

I'm really can't stand organized religion, and I dislike their exempt status from taxes. I think that abortion has a few too many situations like rape or medical complications that the discussion on its legality or not should exclude a blanket ban on the matter. If I were a person whose moral concerns on these matters ran counter to the church, and I was thus denyed by that same church the cleansing body and blood of my savior for my "sins", I would be highly suspect of the whole endeavour.

Docinsano's Channel 63 · Posted: Nov 14 2008 12:11 am

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Why must I agree to that? I think it's the exact opposite of what I said is possible. Besides, our laws have to come from somewhere, which is our society's agreed upon code of ethics. Religion is where we generally get our codes of ethics. Without religion, there's very little basis for what's moral and immoral, and thus legal and illegal. Now in the year 2008 we all agree that people have rights, but why do we have those rights? If we discard religion entirely, we're left with natural law, since humans are animals. The thing is, there's no real definition or standards for natural law. I could argue that under natural law I should be allowed to kill my boss to prove that I'm the dominate male, like many animals such as polar bears or lions do.

I discussed this in another forum, but was much more coherent. I'm sleep tonight.

I'm not sure if we're on the same page here. You are saying without religion there are no ethics, meaning there is only natural law, right? I'm saying that ethics do not necessarily require religion. Perhaps I may make a bit more sense now. Or sound like a nutjob.... Either way I don't think religion is necessary for ethical codes. It might influence people's ethical codes, but it is not required. I still cannot fathom how you figure without religion we are just a bunch of monkeys.......

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Ethics come from efforts of a mutual urge for self-preservation. The first human civilizations banned murder because nobody wanted to die, not because murdering made them less pious. Sure, religion brought together people for certain moral and ethical endeavours such as helping the poor (something that is alarmingly ignored in favor of bombing abortion clinics and Danish cartoonists), but to say that all of our laws come from religion is really trying to stretch the importance of it all.

On topic, let the guy do as he pleases. Yeah, I disagree with him, not just because I don't think raped women should carry around a child they are not ready to care for/act as a reminder of the woman's abuse, nor should a women die because of ethical mandates from people who weren't savvy enough to invent pockets beforehand, but also because I guess I'm just an Obama fanboy. Lost my train of thought, sorry.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 01:36 am

Apparently this pales in idiocy compared to the incident where some church or whatever had a mass suicide because they believed Obama to be the antichrist or another where an "emergency prayer vigil" was held in a JCPenny so God wouldn't "destroy America."

I will concede this guy is within his rights, but I will also point out it's a pretty douchey thing to do much like California's Prop 8.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 03:31 am

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

docinsano wrote:

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

Ryconna already mentioned this, but this is impossible. Your religious views and political views are both aspects of your view of the world as a whole. Unless you're bipolar or have dissociative disorder, there's no way to reconcile conflicting religious and political views.

Well then, you must agree that it would be ideal for religion and gov't to be separate, right? Religion to me is more of an explanation of the mysteries of the world, not a real "view" (think of the whole "3rd eye" thing) of the world as you may see it. Religion is mystery, and no 2 religious views (or political views, for that matter) are alike. My opinions and beliefs are from my own mind, not from the faith I have chosen. I never let my religion tell me who to vote for.

I believe there is a way for this to happen, (government being separate from religion) but it will never happen in my lifetime...

Why must I agree to that? I think it's the exact opposite of what I said is possible. Besides, our laws have to come from somewhere, which is our society's agreed upon code of ethics. Religion is where we generally get our codes of ethics. Without religion, there's very little basis for what's moral and immoral, and thus legal and illegal. Now in the year 2008 we all agree that people have rights, but why do we have those rights? If we discard religion entirely, we're left with natural law, since humans are animals. The thing is, there's no real definition or standards for natural law. I could argue that under natural law I should be allowed to kill my boss to prove that I'm the dominate male, like many animals such as polar bears or lions do.

I discussed this in another forum, but was much more coherent. I'm sleep tonight.

Could you kill your boss because he was a levenite? Hows about a Jebusite, or a caanite, or a hittite? Perhaps he worshipped Baal or Marduk? Perhaps he gathered sticks on the holy day? Naturally adultry. What if your boss was a witch?

Whats morally admirable about the bible?(don't kid yourself, when you say religion, your talking christianity). The old testament is so repugnant most people consider it a low blow to bring it up in conversation, or are under the impression that the new testament replaced it completely. The new testament has the divine equivalent of scapegoating for a crime that nobody had any part in since shortly after the birth of humanity. Jesus invited people to abandon their families. And remember that until the revisions of one of his apostles, the entirety of his sermon from love thy neighbors to turn the other cheek was to the jews and jews alone.

And what exactly does the bible have to say of child abuse, of rape, selling your daughters, slavery, and the systematic destruction of other tribes?

If your a good person, its because you were born with an abundance of empathy and goodwill, raised to be more considerate than your peers, and/or come from a society that has advanced on an ethical level.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 07:29 am

About the whole murdering thing.

John Locke. No, not the one from Lost. He was the father of modern liberalism, and I think he said something along the lines of "The perferct rule for a liberal society is >>you don't kill me, and I don't kill you.<<". Basically, in a society without a set code of ethics, the only rule you need to follow is mind your own buisiness and everybody will mind theirs.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 08:46 am

Quote:

If your a good person, its because you were born with an abundance of empathy and goodwill, raised to be more considerate than your peers, and/or come from a society that has advanced on an ethical level.

That is, if you believe in that sort of ethics. Don't forget that many people believe in the idea of Cultural Relativism. Razz

docinsano, I debate with plenty of people like you on nearly a daily basis. It goes like this:
Other: Religion and government should be separate. Religion corrupts government!
Me: Impossible. In a government where you vote for your leaders based on what decisions they have made/will make, religion comes in pretty quickly.
Other: Well it shouldn't. A good--
Me: It should. Religion is a big part of people's lives, no matter what religion you are. People vote for people with similar religion because they often have similar moral values based on that religion.
Other: What about atheists? They have morals and they don't have religion.
Me: Atheism is a religion. And regardless, they vote the same as everyone else, for someone with similar morals.

I am then interrupted and we debate on exactly what classifies religion. This is usually ended by them calling me retarded and then ranting about other things.

I will simplify it further. People vote for people like them. People have religion. Therefore they vote for people with religion. Until humanity has no more religion or politics (read: never) religion and politics will dance a dirty dance.

ON TOPIC: Denying people the host is a big part of the Roman Catholic church. They believe the host holy and will not give it to those they don't deem worthy. Chances are the people who voted for Obama either saw more important issues, had some belief that god would save the babies or something, or were not very into their Catholic religion. Anyway, that's just what the church does. And if your church does something you disagree with, go to a new church. I am not saying what they did is right, I'm just saying it's no surprise.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 10:27 am

QFT, Lottel. I've had basically that exact same argument.

And if we do away with all religion as most atheists would like, where is society's agreed upon code of ethics going to come from?

And yes, I honestly believe atheists want to do away with all religion for everyone. I have met people of just about every religion there is except for Satanism, and I have NEVER had anyone try to convert me except for atheists.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 12:40 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

And if we do away with all religion as most atheists would like, where is society's agreed upon code of ethics going to come from?

Since most atheists have strong far left leanings, the answer is socialism, and socialism has its own unique set of ethics. Socialists believe that you are inherently selfish and irresponsible; you will not give money to charity if you can help it and you cannot be trusted to spend your own money responsibly. So the socialist government will systematically tax the hell out of you to make you get the dozens upon dozens of the services it deems necessary, regardless of whether you want them, and to make sure that those less industrious than you are able to lead a life equitable yours, regardless of whether they deserve it. In socialism, the greatest sin is success. If you are successful, you will be systematically punished for making it over the high hump of the bell curve and into the realm of the exceptional. You will be taxed into oblivion and denied the luxuries you have earned so that some high school dropout can have a government-sponsored condo.

The issue of morality is a simple one, and it's one that the liberals systematically fail to understand. Morality has a place in government, but that place is exclusive to the judicial branch. The government's sole obligation is to provide national security, not national welfare, and Congress has no right to legislate morality. It is my personal moral duty to pick the causes, charities, and people which my hard-earned cash goes to help, not the government. I want my money to help orphans and injured veterans; I do not want it to be used to pay for welfare checks for crack addicts or state-sponsored abortions. The liberals argue that if the state doesn't sponsor charity, no one will support the needy. This is only half true. If the state doesn't sponsor charity, LIBERALS won't support the needy; studies have consistently shown that "cold-hearted" conservatives like me give significantly more to charity than our bleeding heart counterparts.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 01:19 pm

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

And yes, I honestly believe atheists want to do away with all religion for everyone. I have met people of just about every religion there is except for Satanism, and I have NEVER had anyone try to convert me except for atheists.

I'm an atheist and I have never tried to "convert" anyone to atheism, because I believe in liberalism. And by liberalism I mean you get to do whatever the hell you want, except if it hurts anyone. This includes religion. Believe in whatever you want, that's your own buisiness. In return, don't force your beliefs on anyone.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 01:48 pm

Athiest are members of the left because evangelicals are members of the right. Yeah and the highly educated have tendencies to both athiesm and liberalism but whatever.

Anecdotal evidence is worthless Jeebus. I have had people try to convert me to Catholicism, Mormanism, Jehovah's Witness, Lutheranism, One of those endless varieties of protestantism that I can't recall too much about except they had a politition speaking at the one day I attended taking up fifteen of the supposed time meant for the lord to campaign republican and declare people who believe in evolution to be devils, and one Megachurch but I visited on my own accord so that doesn't count. Jews don't convert, and there are no buddhists, muslims, or hindus in Roswell.

You get your code of ethics from the same source you always have. The sun didn't stop rising when the aztecs passed away did it? Once you dispel the illusion that the bible is a relavent ethical writing (its not), you can start on the actual task of drawing up an ethical system worth acknowledging.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 01:51 pm

You're dodging the question, Gumshoe. Without religion, what will provide a concrete moral basis for the laws of society to be based on?

Joined: Dec 06 2007 Location: Connecticut Posts: 11244

Dr. Jeebus wrote:

You're dodging the question, Gumshoe. Without religion, what will provide a concrete moral basis for the laws of society to be based on?

Morals are derived from religion.

But survival instinct tells us that we should restrict our actions and not harm each other. Though some choose to ignore these thoughts, evolution has made us in a way where we will continue to realize what is good for one vs what is necessary for all.

But you can put all of this aside. Religions aren't going anywhere. They may change, they may alter, but they aren't dying out.

I would also like to address Syd's statement that this election was about economics. I disagree. This election was about the promise of change. Southpark got it right. Obama won because he represented change from the Bush administration.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 02:25 pm

It's true that historically most of our ethics first originated in religion. Even where our moral standards today differ from those of the past you can still convincingly argue that this isn't because we have "overcome" past religious morality, but that the more humane teachings within religion itself were the reason to abandon those aspects of religion that were contradictory to its core beliefs.

But while all morality can be traced back to religion historically that doesn't mean that you can't arrive at the same generally agreed upon ethics of today logically and independently from religious beliefs just by your ability to reason. Much philosophical thought has gone into this since the Enlightenment and the philosophical arguments for ethical behavior are by no means less convincing than those made by religion. I'm willing to concede that the sometimes unnecessarily complex philosophical reasoning may not be best suited for the majority of people; most will be better off with the Bible than with Kant's Critique of Practical Reason. But saying that without religion, there's no basis for morality is simply not true.

Joined: Aug 05 2008 Location: CA Posts: 867

Moral values are not the product of religion. Religion is the product of moral values. We can argue about this shit all day and nobody is going to win.

I find some of what I have read in this thread absolutely disgusting, insulting and just plain ridiculous in it's so called logic. One things for sure, none of what Robotgumshoe has said falls into that category.

Like I have said in the past, I came to this site to talk about pop culture and light hearted subject matter and I try to avoid political and religious discussion but I can't help myself on this one. I honestly can't believe that this is how some people actually think.

I spoke my peace, I'm done.

Posted: Nov 14 2008 04:39 pm

Tyop wrote:

I'm willing to concede that the sometimes unnecessarily complex philosophical reasoning may not be best suited for the majority of people; most will be better off with the Bible than with Kant's Critique of Practical Reason. But saying that without religion, there's no basis for morality is simply not true.

Hear hear.

I was not trying to imply, or even agree with, the idea that the majority of our society's morals come from the bible. I was only saying that asking what morals will we have if we have no religion (as a whole) is moot question. I do not think that people (as a whole) can be without religion. I just think that it's part of the human element to believe in a religion.

Although, I will say this. People who are not suited for higher books of philosophy and such are even scarier with religious texts. But that's another topic entirely.