Stone holm Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 So you propose anarchy? No, I propose a secular democratic government which is consistent with the ideals upon which the United States was founded, which do not include a theocracy or a police state. Moral values are relevant in such a State only so long as they pertain to the health, welfare and security of its citizens. The alternative to a police state which micro-manages the lives of consenting adults is not anarchy but a society of individuals free to pursue their concept of happiness so long as it does not adversely affect the health, welfare or security of their fellow citizens, and which protects the right of free choice as to matters pertaining to religion.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) That is not what I am objecting to and you know it. Please reread what I responded to and explain to me why it is "understandable" for straight immorality to occur and you feel like gay marriage is the moral issue you should go after and "make a stand" . It is a hypocritical statement. Immorality is immorality. If you want to make immorality something the government should pass laws against, then you should be for the government passing laws against ALL immorality. And that is exactly what my post was pointing out, not whether you were gay or not. I'm reasonably sure that he would not be fine with my definition of morality being codified in law, and used against him. Edited November 21, 2013 by thesometimesaint
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 I have the right to hire and fire based on honesty or distrust. That honesty or dishonesty is morally based. Private business should have the ability to hire and fire according to what they want morally in an employee. The church does it.Do you not understand what the anti-discrimination law limits? from wiki: Anti-discrimination law refers to the law on the right of people to be treated equally. Some countries mandate that in employment, in consumer transactions and in political participation people must be dealt with on an equal basis regardless of sex, age, race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation, gender identity and sometimes religious and political opinions. You can choose to not hire someone because they were dishonest with you, but you can't choose to not hire someone because of their sexual orientation, even if they admitted to having sexual relations with someone of the same sex and you believed that was immoral. And no, the Church can't disciriminate on that basis, either, even though they would be discriminating on a religious basis. I think it's good to be discriminating against things that aren't good, rather than just accepting of anything whatsoever regardless of whether it is moral or immoral, but because of the anti-discrimination law people can't discriminate against certain immoral actions. That means you're legally bound to accept certain immoral behaviors even while you know they are immoral.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 1. Age restrictions have varied over time. I'm old enough to remember when getting married at 13 was legal in some states. Now it is pretty uniform at 18..2. We're talking about consenting adults. The presence of shotguns kinda removes the consenting part.You're missing the point. Right now, the law requires that both people be consenting adults. At one time in the past the consenting adults were limited to opposite sex partners but now they can of the same sex. So who knows, maybe at some point in the future the "consenting part" will no longer be required, even if only in certain limited situations. Laws can be changed, you know. What is law now isn't necessariiy going to be the law later.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Sorry for piping in, but it seems maybe Ahab and others are forgetting that marriage might keep relationships from becoming immoral. Meaning, keep from having several partners, in a faithful marriage that is. Doesn't that atleast show that gays want that?People who are married can still have multiple sex partners, legally, and by their mutual consent.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 A state which enforces strict moral laws is almost by definition a police state. Probably the best example of such in current times are countries run by the Taliban. And then when they have subjected their own people to such, they have this tendency to try and subject neighboring countries to their same ideal form of life. The primary difference between a government run by the Taliban, and one run by Christian Fundamentalists is that so far the latter has yet to occur.So maybe all that will be lacking in Zion is the "enforcement" part... aside from sending people away who do not obey the laws.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 And my religious beliefs allow me to not hire a Church of Satan follower. This is no different than the Church refusing to hire a Church of Satan priest to build their temples.No they do not, because you can't legally discriminate against someone else's religion. Even the Church has to tote this line, legally. Not to worry, though, because there still are some things you can legally discriminate against.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 You're missing the point. Right now, the law requires that both people be consenting adults. At one time in the past the consenting adults were limited to opposite sex partners but now they can of the same sex. So who knows, maybe at some point in the future the "consenting part" will no longer be required, even if only in certain limited situations. Laws can be changed, you know. What is law now isn't necessariiy going to be the law later. That we can change laws is axiomatic. But legal consent is one principle in which the overwhelming number of Americans can agree. Embedded in our form of government is the principle of being left alone, unless some overriding public need is established. You have a legal right to meet in a religious setting pretty where, and when you want. To worship, or not worship, whom or what, as you please. What you don't have a legal right to is endanger, or curtail the rights of others, in your pursuit of your God.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 That we can change laws is axiomatic. But legal consent is one principle in which the overwhelming number of Americans can agree. Embedded in our form of government is the principle of being left alone, unless some overriding public need is established. You have a legal right to meet in a religious setting pretty where, and when you want. To worship, or not worship, whom or what, as you please. What you don't have a legal right to is endanger, or curtail the rights of others, in your pursuit of your God.Overriding public need, huh. I see lots of wiggle room for some lawyer going at it from that angle.
Rob Osborn Posted November 21, 2013 Author Posted November 21, 2013 No, I propose a secular democratic government which is consistent with the ideals upon which the United States was founded, which do not include a theocracy or a police state. Moral values are relevant in such a State only so long as they pertain to the health, welfare and security of its citizens. The alternative to a police state which micro-manages the lives of consenting adults is not anarchy but a society of individuals free to pursue their concept of happiness so long as it does not adversely affect the health, welfare or security of their fellow citizens, and which protects the right of free choice as to matters pertaining to religion.I believe we are on the same page here. I am only stating that morality shouldn't be divorced from law.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Overriding public need, huh. I see lots of wiggle room for some lawyer going at it from that angle. Always.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 I believe we are on the same page here. I am only stating that morality shouldn't be divorced from law. I think there is a private morality. I believe God directs my life, and a public morality. Your God directs your life. The conflict comes in where my God is saying something different than your God.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 I think there is a private morality. I believe God directs my life, and a public morality. Your God directs your life. The conflict comes in where my God is saying something different than your God.Or to say it a bit better, where God is telling you something different than what he is telling him... and different doesn't necessarily mean contradictory. We're all at different levels as God tries to teach each one of us the difference between good and evil.
Rob Osborn Posted November 21, 2013 Author Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) No they do not, because you can't legally discriminate against someone else's religion. Even the Church has to tote this line, legally. Not to worry, though, because there still are some things you can legally discriminate against.Sure I can, Hiring at my work requires the free trade of opinions, ideas, advice, etc. Here is the first rule of the Church of Satan- Do not give opinions or advice unless you are asked.I could not hire that individual based entirely off his religious rules because he would not meet the qualifications. Besides that our moral code here at work is to treat guests with honor even if they get angry. That would disqualify them in their number four rule- 4. If a guest in your lair annoys you, treat him cruelly and without mercy. Edited November 21, 2013 by Rob Osborn
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Or to say it a bit better, where God is telling you something different than what he is telling him... and different doesn't necessarily mean contradictory. We're all at different levels as God tries to teach each one of us the difference between good and evil. True. However we are a secular country. So our own personal definitions of God may differ.
Rob Osborn Posted November 21, 2013 Author Posted November 21, 2013 I think there is a private morality. I believe God directs my life, and a public morality. Your God directs your life. The conflict comes in where my God is saying something different than your God.There must be a moral line drawn somewhere. Currently there is a moral line. All I am saying is to strengthen that line that we have so far employed. We are allowing that line to be pushed further and further towards the liberal view and immorality is creeping in at a far greater rate. I am saying or charging as a General- "HOLD THE LINE HOLD THE LINE"
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 True. However we are a secular country. So our own personal definitions of God may differ.But there is still only one kind of being we refer to as God which communicates with each one of us, whether we're talking about one of the evil persons or one of the good persons. We don't get thoughts from cats or dogs or whales or monkeys or dolphins or any other kind of critter. The people who give us thoughts are the kind of being we refer to as God. Now if you had said "person who is God" to mean we don't all hear from the same person, I would have agreed. But we're all God.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 But there is still only one kind of being we refer to as God which communicates with each one of us, whether we're talking about one of the evil persons or one of the good persons. We don't get thoughts from cats or dogs or whales or monkeys or dolphins or any other kind of critter. The people who give us thoughts are the kind of being we refer to as God. Now if you had said "person who is God" to mean we don't all hear from the same person, I would have agreed. But we're all God. Nature worshipers identify with animal Gods; Hindu's have a whole pantheon of representations of God. Buddhists don't have a personal God. All the worlds great religions have some form of the Golden Rule. So in that sense God is saying the same thing to everyone, including Atheists. Beyond that I just don't see much agreement on what constitutes/immoral actions.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Nature worshipers identify with animal Gods; Hindu's have a whole pantheon of representations of God. Buddhists don't have a personal God. All the worlds great religions have some form of the Golden Rule. So in that sense God is saying the same thing to everyone, including Atheists. Beyond that I just don't see much agreement on what constitutes/immoral actions.Proponents of good and evil will NEVER be in agreement about everything so I'm pleased when anyone accepts anything good.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Proponents of good and evil will NEVER be in agreement about everything so I'm pleased when anyone accepts anything good.Me too.
Rivers Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 So maybe all that will be lacking in Zion is the "enforcement" part... aside from sending people away who do not obey the laws.Zion won't need enforcement because it will only consist of the pure in heart. People will freely choose to follow God. If it needed enforcement it wouldn't be Zion.
Rivers Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 (edited) Duplicate Edited November 21, 2013 by Rivers
Stone holm Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Zion won't need enforcement because it will only consist of the pure in heart. People will freely choose to follow God. If it needed enforcement it wouldn't be Zion. Whahooo! You nailed it.
Ahab Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Zion won't need enforcement because it will only consist of the pure in heart. People will freely choose to follow God. If it needed enforcement it wouldn't be Zion.I was thinking about the separation of those in Zion from those who are not in Zion. Somebody will be enforcing the boundary, otherwise those who are not pure in heart and not following God would be able to get in and wreak havoc.
thesometimesaint Posted November 21, 2013 Posted November 21, 2013 Zion is to have such a terrible reputation that the wicked will be afraid to go up against it. If one man holding the Priesthood raises his arms and whole armies fall down dead. That's a terrifying reputation.
Recommended Posts