One standard to judge them all - or a humble foreign policy?

Remove all ads!

Accomplished witht he death and resurrection of Christ.

Old Testament: Thou Shalt Not...

Basically a list of forbidden things.

New Testament: Thou Shalt...

Includes things that you ought to be doing, and a more detailed picture of Good. It teaches us how to make better decisions.

That's where I get the higher law. It actually states in the New Testament that the Law of Moses was in place to prepare the people for the higher law.

Not the whole thing, but a watered down portion--enough to maintain social order. I don't expect a sacrement or communion in the classroom, but a few minutes a day (Really, how long does it take to read the Lord's Prayer?) and basic instruction on ethics.

But where would we get drunks to laugh at? Nietzsche called religion an opiate, to keep order among the masses. That's all we can ask for in a social context. Basically the rules, eventually move on to how to make good decisions, I think society would really benefit.

You are talking faith, I was talking religion. At it's best, religion is the organized structure that allows people to worship together. At it's worst, it's an invitation to abuse influence for selfish reasons. Most commonly, it is used to instruct the masses on how to live without killing each other. Is religion the only way to this? Probably not, but other sources either only care about themselves or don't accept the need/authority to propose a better solution. Yes, I said it, There is a better solution, but nobody seems toi interested in finding it...

 

It is midnight here so I hope I can make a coherent post.

I find my self in sympathy with Gnarf and believe that he is being misunderstood to some extent. He has never claimed to be a scholar or that he finds it easy to express himself. I see him as struggling to explain his beliefs and viewpoints especially with a Religion that is as little understood as the Mormon. It is also my opinion that some of the statements made are ad hominem arguments rather than arguments against his statements. Please read Ragusa's post carefully. It is (IMO) an excellent post. Wow, Ragusa, what has happened that you and I are defending Gnarf? Maybe the Second Coming is coming!

I am not going to get into a religious argument. Drew has posted what he feels are his credentials to expound and I have posted elsewhere mine both religious and non-religious.

Since people are so diverse laws are made to keep society from being chaotic. Morals are those things that people believe to be right or wrong whether they are legally stated or not. Someone needs to teach morals. We now have a society with a very high divorce rate, latch key children and take out food. Aha, its all that junk food the kids eat that is causing the problem.

I believe that true freedom cannot come without separation of Church and State but it is my understanding that our Founders did this to protect the individual Religions and give everyone the chance to worship as they pleased. I have known atheists who were more moral than many of the Christians I knew.

Basically what every human wants is to have food, shelter and the freedom from fear of someone taking it away from him and his family. This is why we have laws but morality takes a step further and shows us how we should live our daily lives. Don't do to someone else what you would not want done to you. Don't behave in a manner which is disruptive to the community or family.

One small 'religious' comment: Jesus was not a Christian. He was a Jew. The term Christian came into use in Antioch to designate the Jewish Cult which followed the teachings of Jesus Christ. So I argue that the Lord's Prayer is not originally a Christian Prayer. I do not advocate its being read aloud in public schools but I see nothing wrong with a few minutes of silent meditation. So the kids sit there and dream about the latest computer game. I slept through the sixth grade and managed to survive.

Perhaps I don't agree with the way Gnarf has worded some of his arguments but I do agree with the idea that we do need to teach morality. Having been a teacher I do have some strongly held opinions about what should and should not be done. And that is my

 

Gnarff,

For the question of the separation of church and state the difference is negligible. What counts is that the state doesn't involve itself in the matter, or rather, that organised religion or their faithful don't involve the state in the matter and try to use the state as an instrument or vessel to spread or enforce their particular religious views. EDIT: That would then also and consequently extend to agnostic or atheist (world-)views and their enforcement, as in the late communist states./EDIT

That is so because the state is infinitely more powerful than the individual and because in the past hideous things have happened to those who dared oppose states on issues of faith or religion. If I remember rightly, those pilgrim fathers knew a thing about that or two.

 

Christ has died...check. Christ is risen...again, check. Christ will come again Uh...did I miss the second coming? Christ returned to the world once more as the king of kings, and I didn't notice? Did I miss judgment day? Did I miss the rapture? Everything has been accomplished? Really?


[Actually, yes, it happened last Saturday, but the papers were covering Lindsay Lohan and Brittney Spears' sister being pregnant, so it is understandable that you missed it. /sarcasm - dmc]

 

It's amazing how interconnected these two statements are. Yet they fly right past each other in a meaningless quest for the real solutions to the most over-heated, over-argued and the most obvious set of social issues and problems of the last few decades, perhaps even longer (except maybe the latch key children part, unless the author means to say that there is a problem for parents in finding affordable and adequate daycare for their children these days - which would be very true). One author states the issues, as she sees it, and the other author provides the quick and obvious solutions, which seems quite obvious to him and to a lot of other folks.

Well, yes. That's fine and dandy. But which morals are we speaking of and who's going to teach them? Of course, Gnarf has an answer, maybe not the whole solution for everyone, but a very reasonable answer: The fundamental morals of the popular religion within a given society. Great. Isn't that really the function of religion? That is a solution: An obvious solution for an obvious set of problems - we all want less divorce, better daycare for our children and healthier foods, among other things. Right?

Further, we all agree that we should have more "order" and less "chaos." That's a good thing for all of us (just leave me my take-out pizza and beer, Ok?). The function of the gods has pretty much always been to fashion order from chaos. Even the pagans were no different, and believed that Thor held back the forces of chaos with his hammer. That was his job. But hey, we still remember him on "Thursday."

The late writer, John Gardner, clamied that Thor is no longer with us (another newsflash), but we still have the symbol of his hammer as a means of holding back chaos, which would otherwise overwhelm our highly-regarded order. John even wrote a book about how "good fiction should be moral." But that does not sound very "Christian" to me. It has been pointed out that the Lord's Prayer is not really a "Christian" prayer because it was fashioned by someone who was Jewish (newsflashes continue to abound). Well, Christmas didn't really begin as a "Christian" holiday either. But yet, it is now the most highly regarded "Christian" holiday next to...Easter...which really was...damn those pagans and their rabbits anyway.

My point in all this is not to be subversive (well, maybe a little), but to point out that not much in society, or in the church, or within the state, is "pure." I can tell you that my point is definitely not to diminsh the spirtual and sacred importance of Christmas or Easter. But sometimes, chaos is inescapable, just as sometimes a bad divorce is better than a marriage that is even worse (where did I leave that ex-wife anyway?). And occasionally takeout pizza is "better" than chopped broccoli, especially with beer. I want the best for my children and I do my very best to get them the finest care I can afford. But my four year old would still much rather be at home with her mom during the day. There is a lot wrong with society: Divorce is pretty ugly, and a lot of kids have it rougher than they should (and we should work on that), and for sure Big Macs can kill you. But I'm still glad that I forgot where I left my ex-wife. Hurray, for freedom choice.

 

I don't think anyone will ever disagree with the bottom line premise there. The question, as Chandos explained so eloquently, is which morality and how and where to teach it. The irony is that the morality I want my kids to understand and appreciate and practice is pretty much in lockstep with Christian morality, it simply doesn't have the religious overtones, and I won't allow it to.

@Gnarff:

So, you mean the part that the early Christians took verbatim from their Jewish roots (the idea of social justice is all over Torah), and that many other cultures around the world arrived at independently? There's nothing inherently Christian or even religious about those principles. As for saying the Lord's prayer everyday... you'd have people hypocritically mouth words they don't mean? Personally, I think that insincere worship is worse than none at all.

 

Another question, what exactly does the Lords Prayer teach us morally? About the only line is "as we forgive those who trespass (or sin) against us."

 

Exactly what I was thinking.

 

Actually I've come to the conclusion that I will be in the bathroom when that happens. It seems I'm always there when something cool happens...

Could that be part of a compromise? Perhaps not a set prayer (In Mormonism there are a total of three used outside of the Temple), but some public statement towards the desired morality that the school requires of the students (As Drew will point out, there is an Aethiest view, I'll leave that to him). The important thing is that the school is addressing the morality that they feel will further the rest of the education process.

The Second coming was not a condition of the Law of Moses. It was fulfilled with the coming of Christ, his death and ressurection. The second coming was involved with the new covenents made during Christ's ministry on Earth.

I agree with you on the Pizza, I'll let you have your beer, if you leave me the chocolate bunnies...

Sad but true. I wasn't even planning to challenge that one.

It is repeatedly pointed out that Christianity has no monopoly on these principles, but it is a convenient package to teach them. You mentioned the Torah also addressing these principles. That's more than some of my critics have offered to this conversation...

That's why I was suggesting that the prayer (or other daily moral statement if that option is chosen) be read over the loudspeaker, by a believer if available. Then those kids that believe can quietly observe, and those that do not are asked to sit quietly and respect those that choose to observe.

Further, the prayer is listed in Matthew 6: 9 to 13. Matthew 6: 7 stated taht vain repetitions are not the manner in which we ought to pray, and verse 9 starts with "After this manner therefore pray ye:" This suggests that the Lord's Prayer is merely a template upon which to structure our prayers, addressing God, giving thanks for the blessings in your life, then making your petitions to him, then close formally.

Perspective (God at the top, As a loving father, a desire to return to His presence), Reverence and Gratitude (Hallowing the name of God shows worship and gratitude, as well as establishing his name as sacred), Humility (Thy will be done), Suplication (Requesting their sustenance, hoping for a continuance of favourable conditions, protection from evil), forgiveness (which Caracoth pointed out), Guidance (Lead us not into temptation). Could these be desireable moral traits for out kids to learn?

 

I prefer that the respect go both ways. Hypocrisy and double standards don't sit well with me.

 

I'm no Atheist, Gnarff, and I certainly can't speak for all Atheists, either. For that matter, no Atheist can speak for all Atheists. Atheism is not a religion, and most Atheists arrive at that conclusion (that there is no God) on their own. They don't attend meetings (well...some do) and they have no formal declaration of faith. In truth, the only thing all Atheists have in common is their shared belief that there is no God (and the smug sense of self-satisfaction that comes with it).

Gnarff, Christ said I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Nowhere in that statement does Christ state that fulfilling the law will, in any way, loosen its restrictions. In fact, he states the opposite. Until "heaven and earth disappear" and "everything (not "everything except the stuff that happens after I conquer death", not "everything except the stuff that isn't accounted for in the Torah...he said "everything"*) is accomplished, the law will not be changed. Christ came to the earth to fulfill the law (specifically, the prophecies of Isaiah), not to abolish it. He makes that quite clear.

* Last I checked, "everything" means, well, everything. Further, assuming that Christ really was only talking about everything that happens up until the point at which he conquers death (which would have only been about a year or 2 away at most), why on earth did he add that jazz about "until heaven and earth disappear"? By most estimates, heaven and earth won't be going anywhere for at least a few billion years, and even in Christ's time, I doubt they thought it was going be ending any time soon. What's the point of slapping a mult-billion year guarantee on a contract that's only good for a few years?

 

Hokay, I'm going out on a limb here. I find this argument about religion silly especially as it has nothing to do with the original theme of the thread.

There are contradictions in the Bible, both the OT and the NT. Some people believe these can be explained and aren't really contradictions.

Jesus taught love and tolerance. "Love God. Love your neighbor. These are the two great commandments." When accused of letting his followers 'work' he said, "The sabbath was made for man not man for the sabbath." In the Acts of the Apostles Peter has a vision that it is alright to eat forbidden food. Paul says that men don't have to be circumcised.

We don't know what training Jesus had or even if he had any. As far as we know he was an itinerant street preacher. At around age 30 he went out to the desert and fasted for 40 days and nights then had a vision.

When it comes to Catholic theology I'm pretty sure my credentials are very high. Maybe Chev's are better especially since he has studied it much more recently

Religious arguments are a waste of time especially when it is obvious that those arguing don't have the slightest intention of trying to see the other person's view point.

I don't like cauliflower and there is no way you can make me. Covering it with cheese may make it eatable but is a waste of the cheese.

 

Nakia, it may look like I'm not willing to see Gnarff's point of view, but that isn't actually the case. This whole thing started because I said that there were many instructions in the bible that, if taken literally, would have us doing some doing some insane and outright immoral things; and therefore reason has to be judiciously applied in the way we interpret the bible. Gnarff took offense to my choice of example and addressed me as if I knew nothing whatsoever about theology or the bible. I need not "win", here. I merely need to Gnarff to see that my position is valid.

 

"Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

The last sentence in my previous post simply means that if I am convinced of something there is nothing that you can say or do to change my mind.

 

In order to recognize the position of someone else as valid, one need not change one's mind. I don't need to agree with someone in order to see his interpretation as valid, no?

All that said, I stand against uniform morals being taught by the government, since most people will never agree on a fixed set of morals, and also because I don't think that's what government is for. The laws which govern us exist not to instill morality, obedience, or order. At least here in the west, they exist to protect the rights of the individual.

Where other nations are concerned, we should probably view other nations as individuals in their own right to some degree. We can't make other nations think like us, but we do need an open dialogue, and there certainly are times we need to intervene. Much like stepping in to help an alcoholic or someone involved in an abusive relationship, we likewise do need to step in when another nation is oppressing its people too much (the pertinent question, of course, being "how much is too much?") or threatening to invade (or invading) its neighbors. Any attempt of one nation to instill its great appreciation of individual freedoms onto another nation at gunpoint has been shown, historically, to backfire, which is why dialogue is so important.

 

Drew,

You do refer to the difference between comprehension and endorsement?

That is very important. The Palestine conflict is a case in point. I can comprehend both the Israeli and Palestinian positions without endorsing either. Still, when I observe the reaction to people making arguments on the Palestinian's behalf in the US, the result usually is a backlash and the most frequent accusations are that they must clearly be (a) anti-semites and (b) terrorist lovers, or if they are Jewish, (c) self-hating Jews. What is not a particularly productive discussion. The reason for why that is so is simple. It doesn't mean that Americans lack an understanding about the differences between comprehension and endorsement. It merely shows that US - as state and polity - have an emotional attachment to the State of Israel. That means the US as a polity are not neutral.

They are far from being alone in this regard, there are other countries having a similar predisposition - for instance Russia and Serbia, or Iran and Hezbollah - many countries do have emotional, ethnical or historical attachments to vassal populations outside of their own borders. Ignoring this will lead to the false presumption their engagement on their behalf can only have nefarious ulterior motives.

Making the proper distinction will lead to the insight that this is about interests and that level of understanding is far better suited to a resolution rather than escalation, or horrors, a locked conflict. For that to work one needs to be willing to see shades of grey between all the black and white.

 

Here we run into the problem of semantics.

1: having legal efficacy or force; especially : executed with the proper legal authority and formalities <a valid contract>
2 a: well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful <a valid theory> b: logically correct <a valid argument> <valid inference>
3: appropriate to the end in view : effective <every craft has its own valid methods>

Drew's arguments maybe valid in the meaning of #2 but if someone believes that there is only one interpretation or one way of doing something or believing something they will never accept your argument as valid. The most we can ask is that they accept your right to believe as you do.

 

Those aren't moral traits. Mostly, they are just paying homage to a god, which is a ridiculous thing to do if you don't believe in that god in the first place. That is all the more reason that the lord's prayer has no place in public schools.

 

Yes. I also refer to the fact that two arguments can be equally (if only rarely) sound in their logic and that their difference lies primarily in a few disputed or murky facts. The end conclusion about the best course of action would lie with one's point of view. A good example, I think, would be criminal law. In some justice systems, the state is required to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the accused has no burden whatsoever to prove his innocence. In others, the burden lies with the accused.

In the first system, many guilty people will likely go free and a lesser number of innocents will probably be wrongfully imprisoned. In the second, few guilty people will go free, but a greater number of innocents will likely be wrongfully imprisoned. Which model is superior is likely going to come down to your point of view.

If you feel that it is better to free the occasional guilty man than to imprison as many as possible, you'll probably prefer the first system; even though smart criminals who know how to cover their tracks well enough to avoid a conviction will likely not be as deterred by it. If you feel it is more important to imprison as many guilty people as possible, then you will likely prefer the second system; even though more innocent people will likely be falsely imprisoned. Both perspectives are valid.

Fair enough.

The problem with this, though, is that someone who advocates forcing religious edicts upon the masses isn't going to accept your right to believe as you do, either. If he did, he probably wouldn't be trying to foist religious edicts onto the populous.

 

I call that the lesser evil. If asking someone who does not share the religious views of the school to sit down ans shut up while others are observing helps put order in place in a school, then I am prepared to ask that.

So they take something out that offends them with no thought to what would replace it's actual function (after denying the function), and don't want to switch back or solve the problem. Thank you (Whoever you are that subjected us to this) so much for tearing down a functional system to satisfy your own vanity.

I take the opposite position. The Buck has to stop somewhere, and someone somewhere has to be accountable for those in their stewardship. The Government is one of those institutions. The Principal of a school is another such individual. If those individuals or institutions do not have the right to institute a set morality then society is in trouble. If the person accountable for overseeing a conducive to learning while ensuring the safety of their students does not have the authority do do his job, then that is not good for society as a whole.

I'm not talking about enforcing theology, only a pattern of behaviour. What they walk away from the school believing in a thrological manner is not my stewardship, and thus none of my business. But while they are in my school, I would demand that people abide my rules. It is no longer about consensus, but about giving authority to people to do what they are responsible for...