AMonger
Veteran Expediter
So you'd just kick down the front door to kidnap kids from gay parents, but leave the bedroom door intact
Kidnap? No. Rescue. Rescuing a child isn't nearly the same thing. Clever post, though.
Chick Fil-A fast food locations under attack by Dems and the Left
- Thread starter bobwg
- Start date
Kidnap? No. Rescue. Rescuing a child isn't nearly the same thing. Clever post, though.
So why aren't you rescuing these poor kids now? Are you all talk?
AMonger
Veteran Expediter
I can hardly do it alone. It has to be the community or neighborhood at large, a la the end of the movie Roadhouse, or else it's going to be called kidnapping. The country's heart isn't where it needs to be to pull that off.
Besides, I don't think there are sodomites in my neighborhood.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
Ahh... the mob.
You mean like the left forces their total lack of morals on the rest of us with legislation?
Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right. Morality is is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. You can't legislate morality any more than you can legislate against it.
That first line seems to be one huge leap into stereotyping an entire group regardless of the accuracy of the statement.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
True, but someone is always trying to do so. The congress is also always trying to reduce crime by creating new ones and new criminal classes. That does not work either. I was not talking about religion.
Morality is highly subjective, rooted in religion and legislated into law on a continuous basis.
Like comparing all legal gun owners to James Holmes and uing his actions to outlaw or restrict ownership of firearms from everyone else.
It's a stereotype, in part, but it's not much of a leap. Like most stereotypes, it's based in truth. The second sentence is precisely as stereotypical, and for the same reason. But it's the two together, in context, which makes the overall statement.
Morals are internal to the individual, predicated on an understanding of behavioral cause and effect of basic right and wrong. Religion is external to the individual, predicated on the belief that there is a higher authority imposing cause and effect rules on right and wrong behavior. Sometimes the two coincide and get along with each other, sometimes they don't.
People can hold religious beliefs and moral beliefs. It is also possible, and quite common, to follow a religion without holding any strong moral principles, as well as to hold to a moral belief system without having any religious beliefs. I'm not so sure that morals, as a blanket statement, are rooted in religion. Some ancient religions were little concerned with moral principles, as long as the gods were worshiped properly. Even today, some Christians believe that moral failings or sins will be forgiven as long as they believe, which is a strong argument for moral principles being optional.
So it may be a stereotype, but it's an accurate one, no leaping required, especially in context with the second sentence, which is what puts the first in context.
Morals are internal to the individual, predicated on an understanding of behavioral cause and effect of basic right and wrong. Religion is external to the individual, predicated on the belief that there is a higher authority imposing cause and effect rules on right and wrong behavior. Sometimes the two coincide and get along with each other, sometimes they don't.
People can hold religious beliefs and moral beliefs. It is also possible, and quite common, to follow a religion without holding any strong moral principles, as well as to hold to a moral belief system without having any religious beliefs. I'm not so sure that morals, as a blanket statement, are rooted in religion. Some ancient religions were little concerned with moral principles, as long as the gods were worshiped properly. Even today, some Christians believe that moral failings or sins will be forgiven as long as they believe, which is a strong argument for moral principles being optional.
So it may be a stereotype, but it's an accurate one, no leaping required, especially in context with the second sentence, which is what puts the first in context.
One person creates a stereotype? I don't think I understand your meaning. Too many words.
Legislating morals, like when anti-hunters want to use the idea that killing animals is not moral. Makes it better when they sit at the dinner table eating a steak as they rage against hunting. They complain that hunting is destroying wildlife while they ride a roller coaster in a theme park that wiped out a thousand acres of wildlife habitat.
Each individual is responsible for his or her actions. One must decide for one's self between right and wrong. Certain 'basics' have been around in our society for centuries. Like not murdering people. Not stealing, etc. Many out there, however, do not even believe that those things are wrong. Ran into a lot of that in the youth prison I worked at.
Legislating morals, like when anti-hunters want to use the idea that killing animals is not moral. Makes it better when they sit at the dinner table eating a steak as they rage against hunting. They complain that hunting is destroying wildlife while they ride a roller coaster in a theme park that wiped out a thousand acres of wildlife habitat.
Each individual is responsible for his or her actions. One must decide for one's self between right and wrong. Certain 'basics' have been around in our society for centuries. Like not murdering people. Not stealing, etc. Many out there, however, do not even believe that those things are wrong. Ran into a lot of that in the youth prison I worked at.
The United States is predominantly a Christian nation and the moral structure of our society mostly derives from the Christian tradition. This is an undisputed fact.
Law is a reflection of a society's moral values, at least in a democracy. Even something as simple as a local wet/dry election engenders moral and religious considerations. For example, a local community can decide for itself, through a local referendum, whether to allow an adult bookstore to open in their vicinity. The morality, or amorality, of San Francisco residents can be found in their local ordinances.... just as the moral values of Ogden, Utah can be found in their local law. It is fitting and proper that local communities can decide so many issues for themselves by consensus.
Law is a reflection of a society's moral values, at least in a democracy. Even something as simple as a local wet/dry election engenders moral and religious considerations. For example, a local community can decide for itself, through a local referendum, whether to allow an adult bookstore to open in their vicinity. The morality, or amorality, of San Francisco residents can be found in their local ordinances.... just as the moral values of Ogden, Utah can be found in their local law. It is fitting and proper that local communities can decide so many issues for themselves by consensus.
Including the second sentence is merely an attempt to validate the first. Driving recklessly down the street does not suddenly become the right thing to do because when reaching the end of the street you obey the stop sign.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using EO Forums
Of course it is. Duh. Without the second, the first isn't valid, any more than without the first the second would be valid. They are two sentences which together convey a single idea or thought. They are not separate and mutually exclusive ideas which can be taken out of context, which you are attempting to do.
But since you want to play this game, fine, what about the first sentence is invalid?
Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
All I have to do is come up with a single instance where the statement is true to make it perfectly valid. I can do that with one hand tied behind my back. There are certainly times when religious instruction is also the right thing, but that doesn't in and of itself make the statement invalid.
Morals are no more rooted in religion than other inherently human traits such as creativity, generosity, etc. They existed long before religion was created to explain the unknown.
Aristotle is correct in saying morals are highly subjective, which is the point AMonger can't seem to get. He thinks HIS morals should be imposed upon everyone, even when there's plenty of evidence proving they're simply wrong: hundreds of gay parents have raised children as well as [and often much better than] heterosexual parents.
I don't think I've ever heard of a single instance of a gay parent killing or abusing their child, now that I think of it, while examples of 'normal' hetero parents doing so are daily horrors in the news.
Aristotle is correct in saying morals are highly subjective, which is the point AMonger can't seem to get. He thinks HIS morals should be imposed upon everyone, even when there's plenty of evidence proving they're simply wrong: hundreds of gay parents have raised children as well as [and often much better than] heterosexual parents.
I don't think I've ever heard of a single instance of a gay parent killing or abusing their child, now that I think of it, while examples of 'normal' hetero parents doing so are daily horrors in the news.
There just are not all that many homosexual parents. As their numbers increase so will the rest. They are not immune to anything, even the horrors of killing children. They have NO problem killing their spouses, other people, etc. They are human. They are as flawed as much as the rest are.
You shouldn't post stuff that confuses people with the facts.
Why ever not? If I can confuse AMonger, it's payback, as he confuses me all the time. Because he says homosexuality is determined by the deed, [a point on which he goes into great detail, I notice] not the desire or impulse, which gets very confusing. Is a happy hetero who resorts to gay sex in prison but resumes his actual preference for females when released a homosexual? Is a homosexual who's so far in the closet he's suffocating still a 'pervert'? Is one a homosexual if they tried it once and didn't like it?