A New Stance on Morality

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by liberalogic, Jan 29, 2006.

  1. liberalogic
    Offline

    liberalogic Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    539
    Thanks Received:
    48
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    NJ
    Ratings:
    +49
    I've taken a lot of flack for my "heinous" opposition to the "Traditional Values" that most people here respect. I just wanted to submit my definition (all be it a broad one) of morality and how we should look at it as a community (as a country), not as individuals.

    1) Compassion
    We all live in a world plagued by animosity, greed, disease, warfare, poverty, and genuine hatred. The only way that we can truly coexist is by treating each other kindly; by helping each other when we are in need and by putting others ahead of ourselves.

    2) Respect/Fairness/Tolerance
    We may all have different opinions as to what is "right" and what is "wrong," but the least that we can do is respect others as long as they do not hurt us or hurt and take advantage of others. If someone is living life in accordance with the rights of others, we have no reason to condemn them or deny them, even if we disagree with them internally. To disagree with someone is one thing, but to tell them how they must live (if they are not violating the rights of others) is another.

    3) Judgment
    We should not judge people as "sinners" or "saints" based on religious principles. For instance, just because someone may be an atheist does not make him/her a bad person; it makes him/her different than the person of faith. While the person of faith may believe that the atheist is wrong (and perhaps even going to hell), he/she should still base judgment on the character of the person: how he/she treats you and others; not his/her beliefs. The same goes for the Atheist: he/she should not judge based on faith, but rather character.

    While these concepts are very broad, this is the basis of how I believe that we should live. It is not to insult the morality of any religion, but rather to seek a path that leads to harmony.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Powerman
    Offline

    Powerman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,499
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +39
    Yeah try getting that point through to all the bigoted homophobic Christians on this board.
     
  3. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    Actually, I think that most people here would agree with that definition wholeheartedly, Powerman. If people want to live their lives without harming others...then I have no issue with whatever they want to do.

    Where the disagreement will come in, of course, is when you begin to discuss what "hurting others," could mean.

    And considering that most of the people on this board have probably never hurt a homosexual in their lives...your obvious disgust and rudeness goes completely against Liberalogic's notion of tolerance - when someone isn't hurting you...even if you disagree with their views.

    You can't even show that kind of tolerance on an anonymous message board...yet you insult and demean others for doing the very same thing?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Powerman
    Offline

    Powerman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,499
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +39
    Actually I was thinking of things in the reverse order. The homophobic Christians of this board would be irrate if gay marriage were legalized accross the country. And this wouldn't be anything that is harming them. So they are in fact not tolerant of other people.
     
  5. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    I'll go as far as to presume that what the majority of this board objects to is the creation of national policy by judicial fiat. What form would your "legalized gay marriage across the country" take? If - like our founding fathers - you believe that representative government is a lesser evil than elitist tyranny, you'll agree that this is a matter for the voters. It is, therefore, incumbent upon you to provide an intelligent and convincing argument that gay marriage will bring no harm to society.

    Maybe you could start by not referring to us as "homophobic Christians".
     
  6. Powerman
    Offline

    Powerman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,499
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +39
    How could gay marriage possibly bring harm to society? If anything marriage might promote more monogamy among the gay community.
     
  7. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    You'll agree, then, that this is for the voters?
     
  8. Powerman
    Offline

    Powerman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2005
    Messages:
    1,499
    Thanks Received:
    39
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Ratings:
    +39
    Of course not. We should be in the business of granting as many rights as possible. Sometimes the minority needs to be protected from the majority. This is one of those cases. It's not like we're granting them anything extra that no one else has. We're just making things equal. Do you have a problem with granting equal rights to other human beings?
     
  9. William Joyce
    Offline

    William Joyce Chemotherapy for PC

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2004
    Messages:
    9,693
    Thanks Received:
    1,135
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Location:
    Caucasiastan
    Ratings:
    +1,349
    OK. You go first.

    1) Show me compassion by giving me your wallet. Don't stop to go through it first, just give it to me NOW.

    2) Show me respect, fairness and tolerance by letting me live with who I want to live, spending my money the way I want to spend my money, and keeping criminals out of my neighborhood.

    3) Show me no judgment by shutting up about my opionions on religion, race or any other topic.

    But see, you won't. Liberals play this game where they preen as the "tolerant" and "fair" and "reasonable" ones, but the truth is that they're just as dictatorial and controlling as anyone, and probably more so. They see government was a tool to force their agenda down all our throats. They're willing to kill us all for their utopian vision. They aren't going to allow "live and let live" any sooner than Bill or Hillary will pass up the cute new girl in Westchester.
     
  10. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    I thought not. I applaud your candor, if nothing else.

    "Granting", or "creating"?

    But the majority have rights, too.

    The Constitution is absolutely mum on the subject of marriage. It is, however, crystal clear on the devolution of power. Read Amendment X. I say again - this is for the voters.

    I don't make "things" equal. I don't grant rights. Your rights are yours; you were born with them. I don't imagine I can create rights, either. That's the difference between me and a tyrant.

    This is for the voters.
     

Share This Page