ickaimp | Physophical Question of the Day:

Current Mood: pensive
Current Music: and how does it feel like to breathe everything?

Physophical Question of the Day:

Bizzare Job Opening of the Day:
'Human Intelligence Instructor **Secret Clearance Required**'

Y'know, I can't make these sort of titles up. ^^;;

Physophical question of the ~~week~~ day:

A while back, one the kids I watch was doing their spelling homework, making sentances with their spelling words. The sentance the kid came up with (and he was rather proud of this) was:

"We burned the church down to the ground."

I was kind of horrified by this, and steered the sentance to something else, also using the spelling words. But he couldn't understand why I was disturbed by this sentance and I couldn't figure why he wasn't. Until he said that he'd never been to one. To him, a church was just a building. ~_~

-Since his father is supposedly bringing them up Christian, that's for him to teach them about and one discussion I'm not getting into. I'm there to make sure homework gets done.

But I was talking to my Dad about this and he made a comment that has had me thinking. He thought that it was a pity that the kids weren't going to some sort of church, because religion tended to be one of the major things that shaped one's morals and sense of right and wrong.

I've been kind of pondering that ever since... Just how much does religion reflect on a person's sense of morals or is something that is more dependant on the person?

er, does that make sense? ._.

impfics: Murder on the Dancefloor (Kazuha/Heiji)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.

Not sure about that. Yes, most religions have strong moral systems, but I'm fairly certain that religious moral systems are not the most moral. I find that during my childhood, raised nominally anglican by anglican/agnostic parents, the religious institutions I encountered tended to display to me a moral code that went too far - at some point I could find a place in which that moral code broke, and began to oppress people (usually over sexuality, particularly homosexuality, but not always.)

Haven't found one that works yet, because most religious moral codes seem to be based in guilt and punishment.

The kid has never really gone to church much but has a reasonable sense of ethics and morality. She also has learned to respect churches as other ppl's sacred place. There needs to be an understanding and appreciation that a church is a place of worship even if you don't believe yourself. I think that also applies to every religion and sacred place regardless of who finds value there.

I disagree on basal_surge’s last point. In my experience with religion the ‘don’ts’ tend to come with a valid reason. (I.e. if you sleep around, you’ll likely end up with an STD, or possibly pregnant when you’re not prepared to have a kid.) The ‘guilt and punishment’ part is people taking the religion too far, which isn’t necessarily a universal example of what the religion teaches. (Anybody ever heard the phrase ‘the greatest commandment is love’?)

Religions give rewards for moral behavior where society doesn’t. Society tends to give rewards for good actions, which isn’t always the same thing. So, yes, I think religions help. Children learn moral codes, they’re not born with them, and religions give them a reason to follow the morals they learn.

Yep, but for me the reason given by religion for the moral codes tends to be 'because god says so' which after I got to the point of questioning the existence of god, ceased to have moral power. I also find that, particularly with abrahamic religions, there is very little positive reward for morality except rather straightlaced security and, transgression of morality boiled down to either punishment or denial of reward.

Sometimes explanations aren’t offered with the commands, but there often is a valid reason if you look for it. Eating Kosher is one of the easier examples: it’s quite sanitary, it avoids diseases they wouldn’t have even known about at the time, and it’s just a plain healthy way to eat. As for rewards, they’re there, but people tend to focus on why the punishments are happening and push rewards to the background. To name a few names that I think most Abrahamic religions recognize: Job, David, Daniel, Abraham, and Solomon all received fairly large rewards for moral behavior. In more than one case, this was in spite of significant things they’d done that probably deserved punishment.

I’m not going to argue the merits of one religion over another, but I do think that the moral codes set down by religions are important for children to at least be aware of. They can decide if they agree to the particular practices of the various religions once they’re knowledgable enough to make choices like that.

So if you can say that the kosher laws derived from Leviticus have valid reasons behind them, what's the valid reason in Leviticus for, say, Lev 20:27, which says stone to death any women with familiar spirits? Or for another one, how about Lev 12:1-5, to paraphrase 'Women are dirty and sinful after childbirth, so God prescribes rituals for their purification. If a boy is born, the mother is unclean for 7 days and must be purified for 33 days; but if a girl is born, the mother is unclean for 14 days and be purified for 66 days. This is because, in the eyes of God, girls are twice as dirty as boys.

These things are explicitly _immoral_ to me, but you are telling me that I should look to religions for moral training?

If you're going to hold up any religious moral codes as _moral_, and especially use examples from the old testament like the Kosher rules, you can't cherrypick and choose your bit of the moral code concerned. All or nothing, or edit out the bits of your religion as they become outmoded (But of course, one can't edit the word of god, thats the problem.)

Yes, there are very good rules in some sections of some religions, but leaving Leviticus in particular lying about for impressionable minds to form their moral behaviour from is just plain silly.

I argue that while some religions have less bad merit than others, having no religion makes far more sense to me.

I wasn't trying to pick and choose, I was trying to avoid a long and windy explanation. (Which this is, but the issues you posed are hard to go into at any shorter length.)

‘Ceremonially unclean’ is not the equivalent of ‘sinful.’ Physical and spiritual wellbeing were thought of as all but the same thing, so they’re spoken of in very similar terms. Being ‘unclean,’ whether male or female, meant you were not allowed to touch spiritual objects or have sex. There were similar laws of ‘clean’ and ‘unclean’ that applied to men; touching a dead body was one of them. As for women; childbirth is not sanitary. Women in this culture also sequestered themselves when they were on their period (this is the ‘customary impurity’ mentioned in v.2), and went through ritual washing at the end of their period before they were ‘clean’ (read: sanitary) and rejoined their families. I wouldn’t want someone who’s been on her period without the benefit of pads or soap to be cooking my dinner. The longer amount of time for girls vs. boys is a throwback to Eve, one which was made unnecessary by the New Testament.

The law you’ve mentioned about spirits applied to both men and women. Being a medium, someone who called up spirits of the dead and/or demons, was something prevalent in other religions of that area. It was the equivalent of devil-worship, which was extraordinarily immoral in a nation that was supposed to worship one God alone. Anything even remotely resembling something common to outside cultures was met with extreme punishment. Would I have a problem with people actually carrying out some of these laws today? Of course: they don’t apply to my culture and the New Testament makes them spiritually unnecessary. No, you can’t edit the Bible, but in this case it edits itself. The New Testament specifically states that the specifics of some of the OT laws are no longer to be followed. So I wouldn’t throw Leviticus at a five year old without explanation any more than I’d let them figure out the finer points of Song of Solomon on their own. (Which I don’t think I’d throw at a five year old at all.)

Religions can be both mentally and morally challenging. Why not expose kids to it? Make them think, but be sure there's someone around (parents, preferably) to answer the questions they'll have.

Given the relative sizes of the "religious right" and the "religious left"? I'm not giving up hope yet, but I'm not terribly optimistic. I don't see a major movement of atheists openly planning to take over the government and institute a totalitarian regime, so that's a few points for the "non-religious" side...but anyone on the "damn hippie" side of the political spectrum has run into people whose religion motivates their ethical engagement with the world, so there's definitely the potential for a good influence.

(I'm not into the whole "society has no morals" schtick...the U.S. is definitely among the most moralistic of industrialized democracies, and not in a good way.)

I have to admit that I tend to be mildly offended by the presumption that without religion it's harder to develop a sense of right and wrong. I'm not an atheist, or even an agnostic. It's actually that I don't really care if there's some supernatural force expecting us to do good. It doesn't matter in the long run to me because doing the right thing is doing the right thing.

That's not to say that one *shouldn't* have religion if that's what moves one to do good. So I suppose my answer is that morality and ethics are dependent on the person and not on the religion. With, perhaps, the exception of those religions that take the view that it doesn't matter what you do to people as long as you, yourself, get what you want. But the vast majority of religions and philosophies aren't like that. Fortunately.

The church has its particular code of conformity and while this does tend to force a set of morals that more or less work because of its benefits for the masses, it tends to constrain individualism and understanding of relativism.

Religion hasn't done it for me. "Thus said I and thus shall you do. Obey me for I am the First and the Greatest, omnipotent and omnipresent, the Alpha and the Omega. Disobedience is sin and sin is despicable and all shall destroy it." Authority of one, even one so acclaimed as God, I abhor. It purports to explain all by "thus said I" and that is no satisfactory explanation for an intelligent mind when they disagree or when things don't end up like they expect. /soapbox

I imagine if you are a believer of Christianity, God can tell you what to do, but it's you who chooses whether or not to do it. It sets the environment, but it's the person who follows or doesn't. Probably a combination of both. But you don't need to have a religion to be a good person. And just because you have a religion-- believe in God-- doesn't make you a good person.

::pause:: ...I probably should distinguish that morals are the values you hold and ethics are the code you act by.

Er, also, the values you hold are all relative, therefore good and bad can't be demarcated absolutely, although most people measure by the benefits to one or many, or the amount of harm.

For the religious, the church naturally impacts their morals immensely. It gives them the values the religion says they live by. For the not religious or those who don't agree with aspects of the religion, the church would not because they do not blindly accept the values and measure them out themselves.

...I haven't been thinking at all lately. ::thuds head hard:: Skipping.

Hmmm...I was brought up Catholic, and I'm honestly trying to think of any Church tenants or "moral teachings" I really hold to--outside of the basics, like not killing other people and such. That kind of thing. And I'm hard-pressed to think of even one.

I don't believe in legislating morality. I don't like being told what to think. I don't like the idea that I have no control over my own destiny--because honestly, it seems so contradictory. Praise and worship and do good deeds for your salvation...but God has a master plan. If there's already the plan, what does it matter what you do? And I ESPECIALLY don't like being told that certain friends of mine are going to hell because they're GLBT.

Now you've got me thinking... *slaps agnostic badge on front of shirt* I think I need to stop before I start totally babbling. Organized religion and I get along about as famously as lemon juice and a paper cut.

The question is a little ambiguous in and of itself, but I'll give it a shot. The morals of various cultures and societies (but not of individuals) is very strongly related (IMHO) to their history, though not necessarily to the exact codes of their historical religion. Case in point: modern America vs. 18th-century America. Slavery, women's rights, dueling, criminal punishments. 18th-century America was closer to the Biblical rules than we are, but we would claim superior morality. However, we would also, as a society, agree that we're rooted in JudeoChristian law... as opposed to, say, Islamic.

As for personal morals... I truly think that is dependant on the person, not their religion. Too many people go to church, temple, or mosque by habit, and never think about what they're being told. Case in point: adherents of The Rapture. "All us worthy, wonderful, morally superior believers will be saved, and watch in glee as everybody who disagrees with us burns in eternal torment." Spot the moral contradiction.

Another case in point: You're not really going to find large numbers of secular people until very recently. If religion = morality, there shouldn't be much in the way of murder, theft, rape, war, etc. etc. etc. until recent decades when it was safe to be an atheist.

I'm probably extremely biased. I was raised with Christmas and Easter as basically secular holidays, got most of my religious knowledge from holiday TV and choir songs, and only went to church for a couple years during the worst part of my parents' divorce. I thought for over a decade that "religion" was more about one-upping the other parent to get custody than anything moral or spiritual, and I still rather believe that religion is just another tool for fearmongering, political manipulation, and egotism.

Personally I don't think any religion shapes a person's morals. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong, religions mostly just make things a bit more specific: which acts are worse than others (or not) and that sort of thing. In my experience most s-called Christians don't act all that Christ-like at all, either, nor do they seem to bother with really *thinking* about what their faith says and practicing it in their lives. If they had, maybe there would have been more than a few less atrocities committed by Christians.

Someone else mentioned something about there being rewards for living according to the commandments or something. As to that, my personal experience is that such rewards sure seem to be totally non-existent.

Morals and values should be up to a person and their own personal views, but society and religion does play a role.

When I went to church, taught Sunday School and basically 'toed the line' my morals and values were far different then they are today, at a time in my life when my religion is outside most main stream religions (or any in fact, as my belief's are a bit of a pot luck of many different ones).

Then again, I'm also older then I was when I left formal religion (by ten years), so perhaps morals and values are something that change over time as you age and perceive the world.

So long as they hold true for you...does it matter what shapes them, so long as they're there? S'my thought, same with religion. So long as you have it, it really shouldn't matter where it's from or why you have it.

A church, in general, is just a building. I'd rather see an arsonist burn a church than, for example, someone's home, and I'm a bit perturbed to see that your horror seems more directed to the particular target of arson rather than the suggestion of arson in the first place.

I'm sure that religion is a factor shaping one's views of right and wrong, but I've never seen anything to make me feel that believers are in any way more moral/ethical/whatever than non-believers. They just have a blinkered view about how their co-religionists behave.

There was also a dicussion with him about burning down buildings while we tried to think up a different sentance, because he didn't seem to have any problems with burning anyone's house, a metaphysical presence or otherwise. That also worried me quite a bit.

The rest of that day did not help. ~_~ But those events are not a discussion for a public forum.

Christianity in theory is fine, but as the mother of the boy in question and as a bisexual, do I really want my sons being taught that their mom is going to Hell for her orientation (which, by the way, is NOT a choice)? Do I really want my kids exposed to the apparent intolerance of other faiths that seems to run rampant in today's Christianity, when I am Wiccan? My kids know the difference between right and wrong because their father and I have taught them so, not because their father's invisible friend says so.

My religion has only one rule, and it seems to cover everything "An ye harm none, do what ye will." And the consequence for breaking this rule? Whatever you put out into the universe comes back at you three-fold.

I would rather have open-minded, tolerant children than "good Christians".

I would rather have open-minded, tolerant children than "good Christians".

Open-minded is good. No complaints at all about open-minded.

Ignorant is dangerous.

-That's- what has us running scared.

Billions of people on earth live well without knowledge of Christ. As for my kids, it's up to their dad to teach them, because I'm not going to educate them in a faith I don't agree with. But really, who is it hurting if they don't know who the "man on the stick" is? If I teach them about Christ, they will hear about his wife and child and how he was nothing more than a mortal man with good ideas.

Pause. Hold on.

Take the religious connotations out of it.

He had No Problems with Burning Down A Building.

The fact that it was a Church was neither here nor there, it just meant that it was a place that had nothing to do with him. So therefore it was okay to burn, because it didn't have any sort of impact or impression on him.

It could have just as easily been a Post Office or a Shrine or a Temple or a Restaurant or a Synagogue, it's all the same in his eyes. He doesn't know what 'Holy' or 'Sacred' means, much less 'Christian' or 'Pagan'. They're just buildings that people go to.

Hence my previous statement about Ignorance. As the saying goes: "Ignorance leads to Fear. Fear leads to Hate. Hate leads to- (fill in ending of your choice)"

The reason that religion came into it was because I was questioning my Dad's comment about 'Religion helping to define Morals', I'm trying to see both sides of it. I love my Dad, but that doesn't mean I automatically agree with everything he says.

How you raise your kids is your business. I'm not there to teach them personal beliefs or religion. I'm there to make sure that they're safe and that homework gets done.

But that doesn't mean that I'm going to stop questioning things when stuff that surprises or confuses me pops up.

**nods** I got the same thing from my dad. He didn't make me believe, he made me think... and he didn't particularly approve of my being a pagan, btw. He was Baptist; I attended his baptism (he was in his 50's at the time). He didn't teach me about his God or my gods, he taught me to think about stuff and to try not to avoid the questions. Did I like it? Not particularly. Habits are hard to break, though.

**Ysabet pulls a soapbox out of nowhere, looks around furtively, and climbs on top**

The thing is, though, ARE they being taught? A church is defined as a place of worship of a god, not a Christian or Jewish or Buddhist god. It's where you show respect to your diety-- and where other people do as well, even if you don't follow their faith. I don't care if it's called a church, temple, grove, synagogue, vail, circle, or Baptist strip-mall storefront: if the worship's there, so's the god.

Wicca has *lots* of rules (like 'Guess what? If you do something wrong, you have to balance it out! Nobody's going to do it for you!') and they're as individual as the person who believes... and so does any other faith. I've been a neopagan since I was old enough to understand what was going on (early teens), but I respect other people's faiths; I have had friends that were Quaker, Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist, Atheist, 7th-Day Adventist, you name it. What they believe is their business, not mine. What worries me in this instance is the idea that innocence and ignorance are considered similar, and that open-mindedness automatically happens. It *doesn't.* It has to be taught, and ignorance is the universe's one and only automatic capital crime.

Not an attack here, you understand; but this is important. I can't imagine ever being an Athiest, but I'd rather know people that were ethical Athiests than religiously-minded, dogma-trained sure-of-themself churchgoers of ANY faith, pagan or otherwise. 'Exposure' goes along with 'teaching'; you can tell somebody about fire and say "This will burn you if you stick your hand in it" but they won't feel the heat and understand until they see the fire in person and *think* about it-- and they probably won't think about it unless they're made to, because the questions are uncomfortable. Ignorance is scary, and doesn't just go away with either age or the kind of general knowledge that people pick up from peer groups. I grew up in the deep South, and if I hadn't had a father who was willing to explain stuff to me and make me think, I'd be one bigoted little Ysabet (my grandmama *was*, sad to say; my mom, on the other hand, learned better. And all my soap-boxing in this response is a condensation of the things my dad made me think about, whether I liked to or not.)

Like I said, no attacks here and definitely no preaching-- it's just a topic that's really important to me and so, so very easy to let slip between the cracks; innocence and ignorance look an awful lot alike... but they aren't. Who's teaching? ARE they teaching? And if they aren't, who's learning?

**climbs off soapbox, sets it on fire and warms hands**

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Physophical Question of the Day:

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject