mikeh, on Jul 17 2006, 06:45 PM, said:
Look at the 10 commandments: they are a basic moral code (which, incidentally, appears to treat women as chattel so I find it interesting that certain segments of the US judiciary and political classes think that they should be prominently displayed as evidence of the moral views of the US) as well as a potent symbol of two powerful religions
1. I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.
4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.
6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.
10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.
do you base your statement on the fact that God is speaking to *men* and not women? and does this, by extension, mean that the 10 commandments wants women treated as chattel? i never would have arrived at that conclusion by reading them, i'll have to study more deeply
Quote
And I suspect that many of the sincerely religious amongst us do view their religion as essentially a moral guide to life, rather than some ritualized 'real' dialogue with an old white man with a beard and a cloak.
i guess it depends on the religion... it sounds as if you have issues with either old white men, beards, or cloaks... i do recall moses sorta looking like that (charlton heston, don't you know), but not God
Quote
I suspect that the more intellectual amongst the religious recoginze that much in their religious texts is erroneous, based on ignorance and superstition, they no longer take the stories as factual but as allegorical or metaphorical... as providing moral values.
i know of no christians, intellectual or dummies like me, who think either the old or new testaments are "... erroneous, based on ignorance and superstition ..."
Quote
As long as there remains a significant percentage of the population conflating morals and religion, the state will not be able to remove the religious reference from the moral statements.
why should they? especially if, as you seem to say, moral statements are themselves rooted in religion
Quote
And once such a percentage no longer exists, the need to make the removal will disappear and the references will be inoffensive quaint historical relics.
you think so? luckily for us, such a time is unlikely to come
Quote
So to use, for example, biblical (or Koranic or Talmudic or...) references in arguments over abortion or same-sex marriage is offensive to me.
God knows we hate to offend... believe it or not, christians find some things offensive... quite possibly any offense i take is based in ignorance and superstition, though, and should rightly be ignored
winston said:
I do not accept the concepts of right and wrong - to do so puts me in a position of judging and I have no right to judge.
i agree with your sentiment re: judging, but i don't think that to accept the concepts of the existence of right and wrong follows... for example, does the fact that you (and i) have no right to judge mean necessarily that nobody does? even if that person is the sovereign creator of the universe? (yes i know one must accept the existence of such before one can graciously grant him the right to judge)
"Paul Krugman is a stupid person's idea of what a smart person sounds like." Newt Gingrich (paraphrased)