| 
|
Page: Profile: Wren's Nest News Local
| Total Views: 4,942,535
|
Article: 16530
[Religious]
Date Posted:
11/8/2006
8:49:58 am EST
Wvox Stats
Views: 8,484
RSS: 16,745
Comments: 13
|
Religion And Ethics As Competing Values
Author: Hugh Thompson Source: University of Alabama Crimson White (AL)
Title: RELIGION AND ETHICS AS COMPETING VALUES
It is so commonly assumed that there is a necessary connection between religion and morality that most of us hardly even notice when someone claims that renouncing the former explains the latter's absence.
More commonly, this claim is employed as an attack: How could someone who doesn't share "our" religious values be a moral person? Even if one is fairly comfortable with this sort of rhetorical cant, there are reasons why one might be wise to disagree with the going view.
The first is comparative. While it is common knowledge that those who view religion as the sole source of morality will disdain "secularism," it is also true that the same people usually abhor, equally, the religious views of those who follow other faiths.
| Options: [Read Full Story] [Comments Locked]
[Email to a Friend]
|
|
Community Thoughts: There are 13 comments posted | Reverse Sort |
| Morality Versus Moral Code | Nov 9th. at 12:30:32 pm EST
|
Terry (Irvington, Virginia) - Email Me
Often confused is the presumed or alleged morality and ethical correctness of a "moral code" found in some religions, and avoided by others, versus actual ethics, morals, and functional social values for a particular life context.
In an overpopulated world, nonprocreative sexual practices contribute to quality of life and potentially ultimate survival of life on the planet. In a tribe at risk of dying off procreation has the same result. In a religion which offers only general principles one must interpret in one's own life context, the same "morals" would have opposite practical meaning in those alternate contexts. In a simplistic, doctrinal religion, a strict "moral code" could flip from being moral or ethical to the reverse, promoting dysfunctional or pathological actions, based on change of societal needs or transfer to a different time or place without changes to the dogma and doctrine. In that sense, it's more workable to judge the religion as healthy or pathological based on the applied functional result of any ideological guidelines or rigid codification of rules, than by assuming a specific set of rules can or will be universally functional in all potential locations or historic contexts.
Some "moral code" issues like Jewish dietary laws about shellfish or pork had health benefits before the advent of microbiology, but are moot today other than as religious rituals of no meaning or consequence other than among those who retain historic religious value for them. At least such doctrines are not harmful to others if some practice them, unlike dominionist violence, or archaic sexuality practices at odds with planetary and societal needs today. That kind of "moral code" is neither moral or immoral, ethical or unethical, in modern context, over Jewish dietary laws, whereas the sexuality and genocidal dominionist codes are rightfully criminal relative to any ethical or moral interpretation of current civil or human rights laws based on functional societal current needs of humans and other living creatures.
The existence of simplistic "moral codes" is useful when most people lack the awareness, information resources, critical thinking skills, and mature judgement to figure out how to live in a particular society and deal with an overwhelming array of complex issues. However, when many tribes merge into a complex mosaic rather than isolated units of aligned functional issues, it becomes nearly impossible to have any single such simplistic rule set which doesn't violate the very principles on which a diverse society necessarily is based, or a sort of orderly chaos. That inherently causes most "moral codes" of the types many people find comforting or useful personally to become amoral or unethical, if not carefully limited in scope or jurisdiction, as few tend to be when indoctrinated as if global dogma.
Another issue this article missed completely is the difference between what is legal religion under any mature US legal precedent or test capable of being implemented in compliance with challenging demands of the US 1st and 14th Amendments, versus other definitions or perceptions of what is or is not religion. Most ethical systems with any real world application for groups or individuals qualifies as legal religion, unto itself or as part of a larger religion, under the Supreme Court precedents cited within and as the basis for the definition of legal religion in EEOC regulations, 29 CFR 1605.1. Such secularism or some forms of atheism, naturism, veganism, BDSM as spiritual energy work with SSC or RACK principles, would all pass the 3rd Circuit's extensive legal tests for evaluating legal religious rights in any case with two often lacking factors, an honest court, and a solid presentation of legal "fact" as evidence.
A wise man once posited, "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country.” JFK's words might be paraphrased, "Ask not what any given moral code commands. Ask what is moral based on functional ethics and social justice."
Find More info -- HERE
|
| The Worst Offenders | Nov 9th. at 11:06:43 am EST
|
Sailordada (Wheeling, Illinois) - Email Me
It is my personal belief that the most self righteous of any religion are also the most perverse people. I only believe in the process of persecuting others these people alleviate the disdain they feel for themselves. The scandals of Folley and others who claim to be so morally good only prove this theory to be correct. I feel sorry for the sheople who don't want to think for themselves and thus follow these charlatans.
|
| Spirituality Vs. Religion | Nov 9th. at 10:55:15 am EST
|
Karl (Detroit Metro, Michigan) - Email Me
The article was a very good read, to be sure.
My take is that religion & Spirituality are two different things, and I will outline some of my thoughts below:
To me religion is an external framework (in which Spirituality is supposed to Operate) , consisting of tradition, ritual, observances and….dogma, which can also include home-made “commandments”.
Spirituality is an Internal Process where there is:
1-Devotion to the Divine Within
2-Dedication to Metaphysics
3-Respect for the Individual Rights and Freedom of others
I see “morality” as an individual’s personal behavior with regard to that individual and or another consenting adult. I see “ethics” as behavior relating to others in every-day affairs in open society.
IMO, there are three groups that are largely responsible for much of the misery in human history. They are:
1-The statist (the state is “god”, you may not question the state)
2-The religionist (you MUST practice my “only true” religion/sectarian precepts in exactly MY WAY)
3-The feudal lord, which nowadays could include larger entities such as banks and corporations and their cronies, such as the military/industrial complex
These groups have a common goal: CONTROL
They can employ a common tactic: FEAR
The big-religion fundamentalist is a prime example of religion gone amok in the world at present. They will stop at nothing to maintain their positions of power, profit and self –aggrandizement. Murder, guilt-mongering, manipulation, lying, stealing and cheating are some of their tactics. The big-religion fundamentalist will also claim that he has the “inside track” with the Divine, even though their claims of original “divinely inspired” texts have been debunked (“extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs”) on numerous occasions. Of course, what is important to them is that the sheeple be kept in abject ignorance so they can continue to reap their rewards of position and monetary gain.
A previous post mentioned the religio-statist Dominionists. For more on them and the danger they pose to Liberty and the separation of church and state that our Founding Fathers set up, one can go here: ( [Web LINK] ) Fortunately, the electorate has, at least in part, awakened to this threat, and has, at least temporarily, halted America’s slide toward total fascism. For those for whom it may be unclear as to what fascism is about, one can read Laurence Britt’s excellent article here: ( [Web LINK] )
The Divine have placed a basic guide to conduct within each of us.
It is called…..CONSCIENCE.
The notion that a person who does not practice any religion can not have any ethics or morality is of course ludicrous.
As for myself, I find the 42 Principles of Ma’at to be a very good guide, cited from:
( [Web LINK] )
They hang on the wall above my Altar.
These were extant for centuries before the “10 commandments” were penned as part of the OT in the 6th century BCE. The “10 commandments” were culled from the ones marked **. The biblical “eye for an eye” was taken from the much more ancient Hammurabi Law Code stele. (law 196) ( [Web LINK] )
The Wiccan Rede could be considered similar to number 7.
The 42 Principles of Ma’at ~ c. 1580 BCE
1. I have not killed, nor bid anyone kill. **
2. I have not committed adultery or rape. **
3. I have not avenged myself nor burned with rage.
4. I have not caused terror.
5. I have not assaulted anyone nor caused anyone pain.
6. I have not caused misery.
7. I have not done any harm to man or to animals.
8. I have not caused the shedding of tears.
9. I have not wronged the people nor bear them any evil intent.
10. I have not stolen nor taken that which does not belong to me. **
11. I have not taken more than my fair share of food.
12. I have not damaged the crops, the fields, or the trees.
13. I have not deprived anyone of what is rightfully theirs.
14. I have not beared false witness, nor supported false allegations. **
15. I have not lied, nor spoken falsely to the hurt of another. **
16. I have not used fiery words nor stirred up any strife.
17. I have not spoken nor acted deceitfully to the hurt of another.
18. I have not spoken scornfully against others.
19. I have not eavesdropped.
20. I have not ignored the truth or words of righteousness.
21. I have not judged anyone hastily or harshly.
22. I have not disrespected sacred places.
23. I have caused no wrong to be done to any workers or prisoners.
24. I have not been angry without good reason.
25. I have not hindered the flow of running water.
26. I have not wasted the running water.
27. I have not polluted the water or the land.
28. I have not taken God's name in vain. **
29. I have not despised nor anger the Gods.
30. I have not stolen from God.
31. I have not given excessive offerings nor less than what is due.
32. I have not coveted thy neighbor's goods. **
33. I have not stolen from nor disrespect the dead.
34. I have remembered and observed the appointed holy days. **
35. I have not held back the offerings due to the Gods.
36. I have not interfered with sacred rites.
37. I have not slaughtered with evil intent any sacred animals.
38. I have not acted with guile or insolence. **
39. I have not been unduly proud nor acted with arrogance.
40. I have not magnified my condition beyond what is appropriate.
41. I have done no less than my daily obligations require.
42. I have obeyed the law and committed no treason.
A person’s religion or trad is whatever they want it to be, whatever works for them. The danger comes in when any individual is under the illusion that he has the right to foist his or her religion or beliefs on others.
True Spirituality Transcends religion.
K
|
| WELL, NO KIDDING.... | Nov 9th. at 4:58:21 am EST
|
Whitewolf (Schenectady, New York) - Email Me
religion and ethics are competing values.... they always wll be I guess. There's an old saying that goes, "What's one man's meat is another man's poison...." There is no one-size-fits-all answer for this. As I have to keep reminding my hubby all the time, not everybody sees things the same way. In agreement with other posters here, the best anyone can do is to be kind at heart and follow the Rede....
If it harm none, do what ye will....
If more people followed just this one rule, things would be SO much better....
Love & wisdom to all
|
| Interesting | Nov 8th. at 2:55:19 pm EST
|
Dynnys Derwydd (Lubbock, Texas) - Email Me
Loved the article, and loved the posts, for the most part, responding to it. Though one part of me can't help but wonder if this does nothing but obfuscate the issues.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of cultural anthropolgy can tell you that all cultures have mores and taboos which are couched in religious terms, myths (anthropolgically myths are religious tales, not false ones) , legends and folktales. Even many of the nursery rhymes we've grown up with and read to our children actually have moral themes. (For real folk and fairy tales I suggest some of the orignal compilations of the Brothers Grimm.)
Here is the Webster's definition of ethics for your consideration:
1. A system of MORAL standards or values.
2. A particular MORAL standard or value.
As a trained Classicist I can say without fear of being wrong that the separation of ETHICS from MORALITY is a MODERN invention. If you read the Classic standards of Plato, Aristotle or Marcus Aurelius you will find no distinctions between morality and ethics at all, not even a subtle, covert one.
One more definition for my fellow non-Christians:
1. a) the study of the general nature of MORALS and of the specific MORAL choices to be made by the individual in his relationship with others.
b) the MORAL sciences as a whole, including moral philosophy and customary, civil and religious law.
Fight with knowledge, not in ignorance.
Honi soit qui mal y pense,
Dynnys Derwydd
Hoping for Ethical Entry into Elysium
|
| Strange, | Nov 8th. at 11:51:04 am EST
|
Eran Rathan (Old Town, Maine) - Email Me
because ethics and religion are not competing philosophies.
The difference between ethics and morality is the source of the code of action, whether rationality, irrationalty, or religious.
Morals have a religious basis, and included besides a code of conduct between persons, a code of conduct between persons and their deities (proper rituals, titles, clergy, etc) .
Ethics are a code of conduct between people, based on philosophical ideals, rational points of view, and other definable quantities.
The two are not, however, mutally exclusive, and they can all be broken down into three basic rules, regardless of system of ethics or religious morality:
1. Respect other people and their stuff (don't steal, cheat, murder, rape, etc - if you do, we have every right to remove you from the gene pool in one way or another for the survival of the species) .
2. Protect women and children first (after all, we need them for the survival of the species, and that comes before everything else, its hard-wired into everything) .
3. Avoid harming other people unnecessarily (there are times when harming people is unavoidable, and when that happens hit them hard enough that they cannot hit back) .
Everything else is a game of semantics (definitions of a person, murder, etc) . And those three rules basically define the rules for the social contract, as espoused by John Locke, one of the philosophers whose work "Natural Rights of Man" was used by the Founding Fathers in designing the US Constitution.
That being said, of course, there are certain systems of ethics that mesh very close to certain moralities (Kant's Catagorical Imperitive can be found in Christianity, since it is a just rational restatement of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.) but it isn't an absolute.
Eran Rathan
|
| Finely Composed...... | Nov 8th. at 11:29:53 am EST
|
Aritimi Morgana (RotterdamJct/Schdy/Scotia, New York) - Email Me
made a great deal of sense to me, at least. I was raised Catholic before becoming pagan, and at times I still think the Bible has some good things to say. That doesn't make me a hypocrite either. I have been very angry with the Church on occasion for their stances on various subjects, but I didn't label them as monsters. What makes an ethical person? Is it their personal values or religion? There are those who go to church every Sunday, pray the rosary every day of the week, read Scripture morning and night, then go out and discriminate against anyone who doesn't fit their idea of an 'ethical and moral' person. The subject of their hatred could be homosexuals, non-Christians, immigrants, whatever. Does that make this person ethical and moral? To me, prejudice is not ethical or moral, and I don't exclude myself from this argument. We are all guilty of prejudice in its multitude of forms. It's how we go about our lives applying ethics and morality to life's issues. Might I add, I am far from being an expert on all this. I am just offering my humble observations. Take the Rev. Haggard that's been splashed across the news. Here's a fellow who appeared to be a bastion of morality and family values now disgraced by charges of sexual immorality. How can those describing themselves as the protectors of 'family values' go about spewing hatred towards anyone not like them? Does one have to be religious to be considered a good person? A friend of my twin sister is an atheist and yet he is a very good person, who has a wife and wonderful little boy. Is he unethical because he doesn't believe in God?
I can't help thinking of the Fundies in this country as the Pharisees of the Bible. They strut around bragging of their actions, saying 'look at me! Look at how godly I am, with my megachurches and rolling in millions of dollars from my blind followers!' Or the big fat CEOs with their obscene 'golden parachutes' while others are barely above the poverty line with Wal-Mart jobs. Is that ethical or moral? Having religion doesn't automatically make you an ethical or moral person. How do you explain suicide bombers? Or the new generation of 'christian soldiers' being indoctrinated by those Jesus Camps? Or one of the most glaring examples, our very own president, who claims that 'God is on his side' when trying to explain away his horrendous mistakes (Iraq, Guantanamo, etc.) Well, I've said enough.
|
| Good Article | Nov 8th. at 11:29:44 am EST
|
Phronesus Disegno (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma) - Email Me
This article coincides with the idea that one must not confuse righteousness for rightness. I am pleased with the rational thinking that went into this article, as well as how it prompts people to think.
It is sad that the title of the article, "Religion And Ethics As Competing Values", has the tendency to be true. The best case scenario would be if religion and ethics were always in harmony with each other. But anything that causes a person to become lazy, for example if a religion does the thinking for you so that you are not inclined to do any thinking for yourself, then that is certainly unethical.
Very pleased with this article... and I might add, it is not surprising that there is a reference to "The Gay Science" above the author's name. A perfect example of how people outside of the mainstream are essential to the survival of the mainstream, to "think ouside of the box" so that the mainstream does not stagnate and so the whole can evolve.
|
| Morality? Phht! | Nov 8th. at 11:28:10 am EST
|
bigcat (peoria, Illinois) - Email Me
Morality is often the last refuge of a scoundrel. It is the one thing he uses to justify his actions against others no matter how cruel. And it also serves the arrogant as a whip to keep others in line.
That is the only reason it exists and the only purposes it has ever served. Those who are truly kind and generous at heart have no need of it as their wisdom would be guide enough.
|
Disclaimer: The Witches' Voice inc does not verify the accuracy of the details stated in this listing, nor do we vouch for the value of the goods or services presented here... As with all contacts and financial dealings in cyberspace, we encourage you to use caution and wisdom in your dealings with strangers.
Political Statements: Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren's Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches' Voice, Inc. TWV is a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization.
|
State/Country flags created by 3dflags.com and are used with permission
Web Site Content (including: text - graphics - html - look & feel)
Copyright 1997-2009 The Witches' Voice Inc. All rights reserved
Note: Authors & Artists retain the copyright for their work(s) on this website.
Unauthorized reproduction without prior permission is a violation of copyright laws.
Website structure, evolution and php coding by Fritz Jung on a Macintosh G5.
Any and all personal political opinions expressed in the public listing sections (including, but not restricted to, personals, events, groups, shops, Wren’s Nest, etc.) are solely those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinion of The Witches’ Voice, Inc. TWV is a nonprofit, nonpartisan educational organization.
Sponsorship: Visit the Witches' Voice Sponsor Page for info on how you
can help support this Community Resource. Donations ARE Tax Deductible.
The Witches' Voice carries a 501(c)(3) certificate and a Federal Tax ID.
Mail Us: The Witches' Voice Inc., P.O. Box 341018, Tampa, Florida 33694-1018 U.S.A.
| |
