An Observation

[nightdog_barks]

JFC, what the hell is it with politicians and their peckers?

Rep. Anthony Weiner says yep, it was me all along.

ETA that comments on this post are now frozen.

Comments

(frozen)

[takes_a_fairy]

Oh, and I wasn't meaning that one cannot be moral without believing in a God. I've said many times I'm not a good writer. I'm better at being more clear when talking.

Where do the moral beliefs come from if not from the religious teachings? Isn't the influence of religion what drove the ideals of moral behavior? Historically speaking. In the more modern age there is a trickle down effect from religious history's influence: or so it seems from what I've been exposed to. If there had never been religious influence about moral behavior would people really think you should have only one spouse and not cheat, for example? Where did morality come from? I think most of the world ( not all ) had had morality passed down via religion and it still influences people, even those who are atheists. Similar to the way things just get passed down through their family lines. It's a topic I'm interested in and I try to keep an open mind about.

(frozen)

[silverjackal]

Your statement certainly read that only those who followed your particular variety of religion had morals. I thought that perhaps you hadn't quite intended it that way, which is why I tempered my response to the implication that I'm some sort of immoral degenerate because I don't follow your creed. I'm European, I've lived in Africa, and in South America for a time, and now in Canada. My parents are/were Atheists, and I was not raised with religion. I've lived along side Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Animists, Christians, Agnostics, Secular Humanists, Atheists, Pagans, and believers in various traditional indigenous faiths that have nothing to do with the "big three" monotheisms. Amongst all of those people were decent, moral people, and creeps, jerks, liars, thieves, and other forms of immoral criminal people. Their actual religion had *no* bearing on whether or not they were upright people. Morality -- in the sense of treating people decently, and living harmoniously within society -- is something that is fundamental to humanity and has therefore been formalized in various ways by religion (as expressions of the ideals within their particular societies) rather than the reverse.

would people really think you should have only one spouse and not cheat, for example?

This is a very bad example. Why *should* people have only one spouse and not "cheat"? You think the explanation is moral, but if you dig you'll find it's more about property rights (i.e. the male controlling access to the female(s)), the desire to control parentage, and inheritance rather than any sort of morality. There are many cultures where people are not monogamously pair bonded (or at least not exclusively) that function perfectly well. The fact that so many people (regardless of religion) commit infidelity in our society (which holds monogamy up as an ideal) points to the fact that it's actually not hard-wired into us as a species. In fact, for all your "morality comes from religion" infidelity was if anything more common in the past when people were ostensibly more devout. The only difference was it was held up as an ideal for the *female* (who could be killed for transgressing), while males -- particularly middle class and higher -- were viewed as well within their rights to procure sex however and with whom they chose. As another example of Judeo Christian "morality", it is unclean to eat shellfish or pork. Since the underlying reason (the potential transmission of parasites or pathogens) is absent in a temperate climate and a modern context, this is a moral principle that has "gone missing". How very lacking in morals! *rolls eyes* All you have to do to see this process in action is look at something like the fight about the morality (or otherwise) of keeping dogs in Islam. There are still forces agitating that it's impure and morally "wrong" and that people should be punished -- all because of a law that is either based on the risk of rabies transmission where vaccination does not occur (which makes sense given roughly 30000 deaths in India annually from the disease), or based on a symbolic misreading of "dog" to mean hyena (i.e. desert demon, a djinn). The upshot? No matter which religion, the morals which are espoused are either fundamental to a social animal (which is what humans are) or are filtered through a particular cultural lens. The cultural ones are all debatable, given that many are outdated, xenophobic, misogynistic, or highly inhumane.

For reference, for the source of morality having more to do with social behavior than religion, it's fairly well explained inthis link) that it is inherent in the species, rather than any particular religious construct. Most of the world do not subscribe to the Abrahamic religions in any case, and often while they culturally claim a faith, they do not practice it. This is particularly prevalent in places like northern Europe, where society is very secular these days, and steadily becoming more so. I view this as a good thing. In a enlightened free society people can practice their religion (whatever that may be) in private -- it doesn't belong in public schools, and it certainly doesn't belong in politics.

(frozen)

[takes_a_fairy]

Well, you sure showed me. Lol! Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt and tempering your response. I think I sensed you would do that so I forged ahead feeling pretty safe. I think people can learn a lot through dialoguing this way. I know I am. While I don't have much of a filter when I communicate and am quite clumsy at it sometimes, I'm pretty harmless. =D

My dad taught me to take people at face value and not judge them for being different. Its the differences that keep things interesting. Jackal, I must be a backslider because I have gay friends and I'm not in church every week. Lol

I'll take a look at those a little later, today. Thanks.