Decrease wrote:You still didn't answer my question, would you believe it was okay for one state to decide to enact genocide? A simple question but one that I think does delve into the heart of what this discussion is about.
Even in the first part of the constitution, it makes provisions for that. If I recall, the preamble does make mention about establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility. Although several issues are up for debate in terms of justice and peace, I hardly think genocide is one of them.
For that reason, I seriously thought you were attempting a hyperbole. Forgive me for not giving that statement the attention due earlier.
Yes, I know that slavery was left up to the state for a while. I also believe that was wrong and while I debate the motivation of Lincoln, I believe Lincoln was correct in ridding America of the atrocity of slavery. Because it was allowed does not mean it was right. Are you saying it would be right today to have states enact slavery and the federal government should stay out of that decision? I would not
Well, no, because my ethics and reasoning are quite different than some of our citizens over a hundred years ago. Then again, my ethics and reasoning say that it's not the government's job to decide who we can and cannot marry. I think that those who attempt to justify another's relationship with their beliefs are wrong and bigoted, especially when they vote no on an anti-discrimination bill that would give the same rights to all in the workplace.
Now you go into organized religion. First, religion is not about fear but about the idea of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. Yes, there is fear that does accompany that of a Holy God, but I do not serve God because I am afraid of Him but because He is glorious. Yet, there are times I will be afraid but that is not the central and motivating aspect of religion. Historically, that is why we have followed Christ, for His Glory and our mutual enjoyment of God. Like with my kids, most of the time they do what I say because they desire to please me. Yet, there are times they do something because they know the consequences. I always hope they will do what I say out of love but sometimes that is not the case
.
And here is where we differ. One size fits all religion often carries threats, either veiled or overt. If you do wrong, you go to hell. That's not my god.
My children don't live to please me, or because I threaten them. They do what they need to do because it's logical, they can see the outcome, and they've probably made a few mistakes in the past getting there. The mistakes are approached as learning opportunities, which help them grow as people. When they can think their way through, with reasoning and clear thought, it doesn't matter if I'm standing there ready to whack them if they get out of line. They do it because it makes sense, because they like the outcome. The consequence when they do mess up is logical or natural. It makes for a very respectful household, because all parties are valued. We use discipline, not punishment.
So, according to your ideas, then, it seems that you believe all morality is made up? You seem to reject any universal aspect of morality? If that is the case, the I would believe that not even the state has the right to impose a subjective standard upon the people. Thus, by what you seem to say, it is impossible to have any logical morals? Thus, genocide is no more immoral than anything else? If not, then rationally derive morality.
No, according to your ideas all morality is made up. I believe true morality stems from the belief that others are worthy of being treated as we wish to be. The golden rule, if you will. We reap what we sow.
I am having a hard time following your thoughts toward the end of this part. It seems to be talking in circles.
Now, in the Christian realm, morality is internally consistent. I do believe when you reject Christianity you have no rational basis for any moral system. As well, then you have no rational basis for any governmental entity to impose that morality on anyone else.
Well, seeing as how our country isn't Christian, we should reject 'christian' morality and go with the simple, effective, Golden rule. I do dislike your term of 'rational' here. Are you saying Buddhists, Muslims, Jews, and everyone else are not rational and have no moral system? I find that to be an extremely inflammatory statement, one that shouldn't come from the mind of someone spouting "christian" this and "christian" that.
Just like a school, a family, or a community, rules are needed to ensure order and peace. A state is no different. As a governing entity, there is the responsibility that all citizens (fetuses are not citizens) are safe. We have a saying here, your rights end where mine begin. You have a right to do whatever you like as long as it is not harming others. That is where a government steps in.
, if more resources were encouraged to be dedicated to block communities, if tighter restrictions on our food were pushed (like being told what was a hybrid or messed with), that might get my attention a bit more than the if not anything else, hypocritical stance of abortion.