24 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitYou are right. So as a society we must agree to which morality is the way we should go, or at least, elect the powers that be who will influence the morality of the future. However, to say that the "religious" should have no say in this decision is absurd and biggoted.
The state cannot help but influence the morality of the masses. There is no way to avoid it. Whether they forbid, or legalize, abortion, someone's values are being contradicted.
24 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by SwissGambitIt is my belief that the government should only grant certain rights based upon children being in the mix even though they get married. I don't count marriage as a "right" in that there is no financial benefit, or at least, should not be unless you have children. That was the crux of my arguement.
The last paragraph is ridiculous - straight couples can and do get married without having children. Should we take away the rights of rich, childless, straight couples because they "don't need the extra support"? Absurd.[/b]
As for the "rich" getting help, you run into problems such as trying to define "rich". What is your definition? You then run into the Marxist mind set of economic equality which does not and never will exist.
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeyReligious people can have a say in what laws of a secular nation can be, but they can't claim a law should be made because of religion. They will have to come up with an explanation that leaves religion out of it. For example, some religions say Saturday is the Sabbath and all work should stop. Others say the same for Sunday. Years ago, most stores were closed on Sunday. Those Blue Laws have been eliminated so now were are all free to work or not as we see fit on either day. This is not the case in Theocratic countries like Israel or Iran. If you can think of a reason other than religion to keep people from working on a particular sabbath, let the secular government consider it.
You are right. So as a society we must agree to which morality is the way we should go, or at least, elect the powers that be who will influence the morality of the future. However, to say that the "religious" should have no say in this decision is absurd and biggoted.
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeyAgreed.
You are right. So as a society we must agree to which morality is the way we should go, or at least, elect the powers that be who will influence the morality of the future. However, to say that the "religious" should have no say in this decision is absurd and biggoted.
24 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by josephwC'mon Joseph. Why do you allow your beliefs to be a product of propaganda?
On the contrary. The golden rule as expressed by Jesus is different from how it is expressed by other religions.
Jesus said to do unto others as you would have done unto you.
The others word it differently. More like, as others do unto you do unto others.
Check it out.
From http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm:
Some "Ethic of Reciprocity" passages from the religious texts of various religions and secular beliefs:
Bahá'í Faith:
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf
Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
Buddhism:
"...a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Christianity:
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.
"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.
"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6. The Gospel of Thomas is one of about 40 gospels that circulated among the early Christian movement, but which never made it into the Christian Scriptures (New Testament).
Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
"Tse-kung asked, 'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3
"Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence." Mencius VII.A.4
Ancient Egyptian:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version of the Epic of Reciprocity ever written.
Hinduism:
This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. Mahabharata 5:1517
Humanism:
"(5) Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."
"(11) Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings. " 4
"Don't do things you wouldn't want to have done to you, British Humanist Society. 3
Islam: "None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 5
Jainism:
"Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara
A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33
Judaism:
"...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
"And what you hate, do not do to any one." Tobit 4:15 6
Native American Spirituality:
"Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace.
"All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really One." Black Elk
"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.
Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."
Shinto:
"The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"
"Be charitable to all beings, love is the representative of God." Ko-ji-ki Hachiman Kasuga
Sikhism:
Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib
bullet "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259
"No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299
Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.
Taoism:
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Unitarian Universalism:
"The inherent worth and dignity of every person;"
"Justice, equity and compassion in human relations.... "
"The goal of world community with peace, liberty, and justice for all;"
"We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles. 7,8
Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One's will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede
Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."
Zoroastrianism:
"That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
Some philosophers' statements are:
Epictetus: "What you would avoid suffering yourself, seek not to impose on others." (circa 100 CE)
Kant: "Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."
Plato: "May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me." (Greece; 4th century BCE)
Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)
Seneca: "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeyThere could still be tax deductions for dependents, etc. without complicating the issue by dragging marriage into it. But I think this sort of aid should apply whether the child has one parent or two. If anything, the single parents need the help even more.
It is my belief that the government should only grant certain rights based upon children being in the mix even though they get married. I don't count marriage as a "right" in that there is no financial benefit, or at least, should not be unless you have children. That was the crux of my arguement.
As for the "rich" getting help, you run into problems suc ...[text shortened]... n run into the Marxist mind set of economic equality which does not and never will exist.
24 Dec 09
I agree, but didn't all those human societies have a religion of some sort? Even recent societies (like the Soviet Union) were founded in regions which previously had religions that had merely been driven underground. Are there societies in which there was never any religious influence that have some of the same laws that religious societies adhere to?
24 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeYou say that the "Blue laws" have been done away with, but we still have weekends, do we not? And were exactly is the source of these two days off we get at the end of the weeK? Before the Mosaic laws introduced a Sabaath, men were forced to work 24/7. This law was an act of liberation, not legalism. In fact, in modern society we usually get 2 days off, not 1. So here we see a religious law that benefits society as a whole, even though you probably can't make much of an arguement for its validity in the secular world.
Religious people can have a say in what laws of a secular nation can be, but they can't claim a law should be made because of religion. They will have to come up with an explanation that leaves religion out of it. For example, some religions say Saturday is the Sabbath and all work should stop. Others say the same for Sunday. Years ago, most stores we ...[text shortened]... on to keep people from working on a particular sabbath, let the secular government consider it.
24 Dec 09
Originally posted by whodeyIt's great to have 2 days off, but millions of people work either or both of those days as their choice. I myself used to work Saturday and take Sunday and Monday off. The problem is that if religious fanatics had their way, no one would be allowed to work on whichever day that religion says is the sabbath even if he or she wanted to. (By the way, you can thank the progressive labor movement for 2 day weekends, not religion.)
You say that the "Blue laws" have been done away with, but we still have weekends, do we not? And were exactly is the source of these two days off we get at the end of the weeK? Before the Mosaic laws introduced a Sabaath, men were forced to work 24/7. This law was an act of liberation, not legalism. In fact, in modern society we usually get 2 days off, n ...[text shortened]... en though you probably can't make much of an arguement for its validity in the secular world.