yarrido@aol.com wrote:

Josh Miles wrote:

yarrido@aol.com wrote:

Josh Miles wrote:

yarrido@aol.com wrote:

Denis Loubet wrote:

"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ab0u92prbpkc7jk8il1qljnssd4qmpc835@4ax.com...

On Sun, 25 Jun 2006 15:10:11 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote:

There is no such thing as a "right to abortion."

There is if we say there is.

God says "NO".

God's not a citizen, it doesn't get a vote.

And I'm talking about moral law, not civil law.

No, we're talking rights, it's there in the subject heading.

Would you?

Evasion of the question noted. Could it be that you realize that
believing in God has little or nothing to do with morality?

And no, I wouldn't--for the same reasons above.

Would
you become a rapist?

Would you?

Evasion of question noted.

And no, I wouldn't--for the same reasons above.

I can think of one example presently in the news where law
did not exist in Iraq and soldiers are currently being investigated for
murder and rape in an area where lawlessness made it possible

No, lawlessness did not make it possible. People do this everywhere,
regardless of the law and regardless of the consequences they'll face as
a result of committing their crimes.

And yes, laws exist that will punish these soldiers for their crimes.
They broke *military* law, and Iraq, even though it's in a state of
chaos right now, is not completely lawless. They do have laws and law
enforcement. These soldiers knew very well that they could be sentenced
to death for their war crimes. If they're convicted--and they should be,
as there is overwhelming evidence of their guilt--they will likely face
the death penalty.

for them to do what they did and made it easier to get away with it. So, based
on past experience in such a case...answer the question.

What does this have to do with belief in God? People do these things
anyway, regardless of laws. People who do it are just bad people, plain
and simple--and they're bad people regardless of their belief in God.
Your contention is that without God, people will run wild and do what
they want, and that's simply not true.

Ask those Marines who killed 24 Iraqi citizens if they believe in God. I
bet I know the answer.

Is your belief in God the only thing keeping you
from behaving like a sociopath?

It is not my _belief_ in God that keeps me from doing wrong things.
Belief is not something that keeps a person from doing things that are
bad .

Yes it does. Religion (and yes, I know you're not talking about
religion; I'm just using it as an example) thrives on fear. Keep 'em
scared and they'll behave.

Religions...do, religion does not. Sounds like a contradiction...

It's not.

never mind. I will cut this down to the chase and let's just dump the excess
baggage that does us no good at all. There is only one thing that will
cause someone to do that which is right and it is spelled out in one
word "obligation."

Depends on what you mean by "right." I could give a friend who has car
trouble a ride to work, but I don't have an obligation to do so. But to
me, if I had the time to do so, driving him to work would be the "right"
thing to do because I care about my friends. But in no way do I have an
obligation to do it. Helping people out is a good moral principle to
have, but it's not always an obligation.

So your idea that morality is based solely on obligation is clearly wrong.

More precisely, personal obligation that is the
outgrowth of an act that took place two thousand years ago on the
behalf of a Christian causes a Christian to do what is right.

Here you go again with that "without God there is no morality" argument.
Isn't that what you're saying? If a Christian abandons his faith is he
also abandoning his sense of morality?

While it's true that Christian
doctrine has a significant effect on a Christian's moral values, it's
not true that it has complete control.

It's very clear that most
Christians reject, or conveniently ignore, certain teachings of their
religion on the basis that it's wrong. For example, the Bible says that
premarital sex is sinful. The majority of Christians, however, are not
virgins when they get married (if they choose to get married).

The degree to which he acknowledges that obligation determines the degree
to which he does right. You might, but just the same, do you know of
any other religion that basis its right behavior on grattitude based
obligation to their god rather than fear of punishment? Fear does not
work...

Fear is a very big part of Christianity. Without it, it doesn't work. It
has this "believe or die" mentality.

The Bible constantly threatens
believers with death
or some other awful punishment
is they break the
rules,

many of which are completely arbitrary.
A good example of one of
those arbitrary rules is the prohibition of homosexual sex. That rule is
based solely on hate, ignorance, and intolerance; it has no basis in
morality.

Yet if you were to ask some Christians why it's wrong, the
best answer they could come up with would be, "Because the Bible says
so."

This example is just one in a long list of completely arbitrary
rules that, if broken, the Bible says you will be punished for all
eternity.

personal obligation does...and I don't mean just obligation...I
mean that when a particular obligation becomes personal that individual
is impelled to fufill it. I can give examples of people giving up a
kidney for someone who needed one and how close both those two
individuals and their families become afterwards...personal obligation.

That's altruism, not obligation. It's a very kind and generous thing to
do, but no one is under any obligation whatsoever to do it.

There was one instance when a child died in Italy and I think it was a
heart that was donated to keep another alive...personal
obligation...made the involved families closer than maybe they would be
if they were part of the same family.

Again, that's altruism, not obligation. The parents of the deceased
child whose heart was donated were not obligated to donate his or her
organs, but chose to do so, presumably because they wanted other
children to have the chance at life that theirs didn't.

Do you think that the people who were the recepients would
so much as flinch if the donating parties asked for a favor of
them(doing what is right)?

They probably would. But they might not. They wouldn't be under any
obligation to do so. They might feel--and probably do--some sort of
personal obligation, but there is no moral obligation to return the favor.

_Personal obligation_
for what they did for them would drive them to eagerly accommodate the
request with joy in their heart. Unless you have gone through something
like that yourself, you would probably find it difficult to fully
appreciate this _personal obligation_,

Not fully, no. But I have empathy. I am an atheist, but, believe it or
not, I am capable of feeling empathy.

but if you have children and
someone saved them from a murderer's clutches...perhaps you would
understand how powerful a thing _personal obligation_ is and how it can
drive someone to doing what is right..even if it is not convenient.

To save someone from a murderer is a moral obligation, yes. But donating
organs is not.

You're just rambling now. I don't think I totally understand what you're
getting at--if anything.

So, your assessment for some religions is right on the mark, but in the
case of devout orthodox Christians, you couldn't be more off target if
you tried.

Actually, the most orthodox and the most devout, for the reasons I
mentioned above, are the ones most driven by fear. They instill fear in
their children very early on in life by teaching them the doctrine of
"original sin"--a teaching that I've always maintained should be
considered child abuse. The most orthodox are the ones who believe
everyone who doesn't accept Jesus as his or her savior are going
straight to hell. It's the most orthodox Christians who adhere to
strict, arbitrary rules for no other reason than the fact that they're
afraid not to.

Did you tell me why the government should be obligated to grant a
particular right or even ensure that it is not revolked or denied?

That's the whole purpose of government.

Since the govermnet has the final say, on what grounds do you object to
the revocation of a previously granted right? If that right is grounded
in an arbitrary decision on the part of the government, you have no
reason to object(the government giveth the government taketh away).

Do you not know what democracy is? I don't know where you live, but my
country (the U.S.) hasn't *completely* turned into a police state. We do
have a say in how the government works. There are checks and balances.

Furthermore, if the government or society has the final say in what is
moral and what is not,

The government does NOT decide what's moral and what's not;

it decides
what's legal and what's not. "Legal" doesn't necessarily mean "moral"
and "illegal" doesn't necessarily mean "immoral." Up until a couple
centuries ago, slavery was legal in the U.S., but it's NEVER been
moral--not even when it was legal. Likewise, possession of marijuana is
illegal, but it's not immoral.

then if that society or govermnent suddenly
decides that torturing little children for fun and YOU object to that
kind of action...you become immoral by your objection and refusal of
doing what is moral.

Where do you get this *****? If the government decided tomorrow that it's
okay to torture children, it still wouldn't be moral. My objection to
doing so (and I would object) might be illegal, but it wouldn't be
immoral, just as someone who decides to smoke marijuana is doing
something illegal but not something immoral.

So, is the government or society the final decider of what is right or wrong?

Morally, no.

However, I think that your moral intuition tells you something different...and that is why you would object to the
society or government that did such a thing.

And I think you have no clue what you're talking about. Where did I
claim that the government is society's moral arbiter?

You know that those moral
laws of right and wrong transcend the workings of both society and
government

Not always society, though. Some things that might be considered immoral
in one society might not be considered immoral in another. Not
everything is absolute.

and you would work against both in a situation like that.
Any civilized human being would.

This is getting tedious. You missed my entire point. My point is that a
belief in God is not necessary to behave morally. That's all.

I will say no more on this matter in this thread. I've explained myself
completely.