Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

.0> Morality cannot be legislated

moral code extends further than the law. 

for instance, if the ten commandments were an agreed moral code by the
majority of the population, could you legislate the ten commandments?

"thou shalt not kill" looks like a piece of cake. "thou shalt not coveth 
thy neighbours wife" looks tricky! would a harmless flirt then lead to 
punishment?


andreas.

Interesting quote.

I guess it depends on how you look at it. If the aim of your behavior regulation
is to force (as far as possible) folks to conform to your morality, is there a 
difference?

My biggest fears around established religion revolve around the enactment and
enforcement of morality through legislation. In this country that religion would
be Christian. There are already hundreds of laws on the books that have no
purpose except to enforce someones (again, in this country, primarily Christian)
view of morality. Most 'victimless crimes' fall into this category. 

Steve

Note 1030.2

>Interesting quote.

I don't know for certain, but I suspect that, after Jesus, Martin Luther
King is the person most frequently quoted in this conference.

Shalom,
Richard

would the death penalty be covered by a christian law?



andreas.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Perserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor
unable to inflict harm.  For this reason the traditional teaching of
the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of
legitimate public authority to punish malefactors with penalties
commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in cases
of extreme gravity, the death penalty.  For analogous reasons those
holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors
against the community in their charge.

The primary effect of punishment is to redress the disorder caused by
the offense.  When his punishment is voluntarily accepted by the offender,
it takes on the value of expiation.  Moreover, punishment has the effect
of preserving public order and the safety of persons.  Finally punishment
has a medicinal value; as far as possible it should contribute to the
correction of the offender [Cf. Luke 23:40-43].

If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an
aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public
authority should limit itself to such means, because they better
correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more
in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

----

Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard
human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the
weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so
without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies.
They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral
risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.

----

A Jewish view of the commandment prohibiting killing a human being:

Date: Thu, 21 Jul 1994 09:17:04 -0400
From: Sean Engelson <engelson@cs.uchicago.edu>
Subject: R.Ts.`H (the 6th commandment)

Regarding the proper translation of the sixth commandment, I think that
the best translation for the shoresh (word root) R.Ts.`H (as in
"rotsea`h") would be "to kill a human being".  This is contrasted with
H.R.G ("laharog") which more generally means to kill.  First, it seems
that, in the Torah at least, the latter is used as a default, with the
first used either when the specificity is needed (as in the commandment)
or for stylistic reasons ("yirtsa`h et harotsea`h").  According to this,
the commandment prohibits killing people period.  However, in those
cases where we have a separate mandate to kill someone (eg, beth din, or
rodeph) we can apply the principle of `aseh do`heh lo' ta`aseh (a
positive commandment pushes aside a prohibition) to show that the 6th
commandment doesn't apply.  Kakh nir'eh li.

	-Shlomo-

----

That said, current Orthodox Jewish thinking is that a sanhedrin which
would impose the death penalty under the Law is exceedingly bloodthirsty.

The National Council of Catholic Bishops in the U.S. as well as the General
Convention of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. have firmly stated their
absolute opposition to the imposition of the death penalty in modern
society.

If I try to be consistent with the Gospel, it would seem to me that life
imprisonment without the possibility of parole is the most severe punishment
that a court should impose.  In the case of some offenders, this may have to
mean solitary confinment without ever being allowed in the presence of others
except in shackles, to prevent an inmate with "nothing left to lose" from
killing fellow inmates.

/john

> The National Council of Catholic Bishops in the U.S. as well as the General
> Convention of the Episcopal Church in the U.S.A. have firmly stated their
> absolute opposition to the imposition of the death penalty in modern
> society.

that's good news /john, i am glad to hear that.

thanks for posting the various points of view!


andreas.

    What's is their alternative plan to mete out justice for the poor
    victim?!
    
    -Jack

    Justice, it seems, especially when viewed from a particular mindset,
    is virtually indistinguishable from vengeance.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    Was that in answer to my question or was that a quote from Milton or
    some such!!!?
    
    By the way, I await your other article on SDI and will read closely!
    
    -Jack

    .9
    
    -Jack,
    
    Don't ask me how, but I managed to get through school without
    reading Milton.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Regarding MLK's quote.
    
    I agree with it in total.
    
    I see a strong Biblical basis to it(Romans in particularly).
    
    Law is for the immature.  It is a disciplinarian for the immature. 
    Faith is for the mature.  Those who are Spiritual have the Law of God
    written on their hearts.  They are a law unto themselves.  At the most,
    laws can protect us from our own immature impulses and the impulses of
    others without fully matured Faith.  (Pehaps Jesus is the only person
    who ever had fully mature Faith.)
    
    
                               Patricia

    	re .11
    
    	How true.  Even James Madison recognized it way back then:
    
    	"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not
    	upon the power of government.  Far from it!  We have staked the
    	future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of
    	each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten
    	Commandments of God."
    
    	He's saying that those who are without a moral foundation already
    	will not be inclined to follow laws either.

.11, .12

*Sigh*. Here we go again. (And I'm kind of surprised at Patricia if she meant
what I think she meant).

You don't have to be a Christian (or whatever) to have morals and behave
morally. Perhaps the difference is between morality and ethics, but I am no more
likely to go off and steal or kill someone than your average Christian. In fact,
based on recent news accounts from Ma., I am much less likely.

In my note about what bothers me about Chritians, my comments on overbearing
smug righteousness is aimed at exactly this kind of attitude. As for Dr. King's
quote (which I believe is correct):

"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated.  Judicial
decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless....
The habits, if not the hearts of people, have been and are being altered
everyday by legislative acts, judicial decisions and executive orders."

If judicial decrees may not change the heart, then neither to biblical
proclamations. 

Patricia, faith (belief without proof) is for the mature? The last time I had
full faith in someone his name was Santa Claus. Does that mean that those of us
that have taken a careful, logical look and rejected the concept of God are
immature? I would disagree.

Joe, are you claiming that morality can only come from the ten commandments? You
only need one example of a moral atheist to disprove that notion. Of course, if
you define morality as belief in God...

Quit trying to claim the high ground of morality, you have no monopoly on it.

Steve

    steve,
    
    Actually I call all people who have the spirit of truth in their hearts
    people of Faith regardless of what their religious profession is.
    
    God for me is the Ground of our being.  Our sense of ultimate concern. 
    As I said before, many secular humanists who have the spirit of truth
    written in their hearts are some of the most ethical, moral and
    spiritual people I know.
    
    My definition includes Christian's who have the law of God written on
    their hearts.  It includes a lot of other people as well.
    
    I hope this clarifies.
    
                                       Patricia

    	I posted my note without comment to allow a bit of tension.
    
    	Perhaps I shouldn't have.
    
    	I suspect that Madison used "The Ten Commandments" because that
    	was the general standard of the day.
    
    	I also agree that a good "moral foundation" is not exclusively
    	Christian, or even religious.  However I *do* have my ideas
    	about what a "good moral foundation" implies, which is certainly
    	subject to debate -- especially here.

.14 POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"

Thanks, I was pretty sure that I was misinterpreting you. 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.15 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

Boy, you guys are too easy today...

    	I also agree that a good "moral foundation" is not exclusively
    	Christian, or even religious.  However I *do* have my ideas
    	about what a "good moral foundation" implies, which is certainly
    	subject to debate -- especially here.

Debate is not necessary from my viewpoint (although I would be interested in
seeing what you characterize as a good moral foundation). I was mostly reacting
to the idea a good moral foundation was the exclusive province of religion.

Steve

steve, christians only get the "moral high ground" if you let them have the 
moral high ground. fwiw, practising christians _are_ today a minority so they 
should not pose a threat. also fwiw, a christian moral foundation is at least 
well justified and very firmly anchored in faith (or better maybe, religion). 
this is an advantage (or disadvantage?) which a secular moral foundation does
not have.

.15>	I also agree that a good "moral foundation" is not exclusively
.15>	Christian, or even religious.  However I *do* have my ideas
.15>	about what a "good moral foundation" implies, which is certainly
.15>	subject to debate -- especially here.

i would like to hear your ideas, i am sure you have a few good ones.


andreas.

.17 DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"

>steve, christians only get the "moral high ground" if you let them have the 
>moral high ground.

I don't, which is why I wrote the note :^)  But I have heard it argued that you
cannot be moral unless you are religious (actually the argument usually
specifies Christian). 

>fwiw, practising christians _are_ today a minority so they 
>should not pose a threat.

Hmmm, I wonder if Christians are a minority in this country? I suspect that they
are not a minority in the area in which I reside. Practicing Christians are a 
different story, there are probably far fewer of them. But folks that count
themselves as Christian count as a part of the 'threat' also, if they do nothing
to fight injustice done in the name of religion.

>also fwiw, a christian moral foundation is at least 
>well justified and very firmly anchored in faith (or better maybe, religion).

No argument here. In many ways the Christian morality is that which I follow. We
part company when it comes to censuring folks for acts that do no harm to
others, or force others to follow their rituals via legislation.

Steve

    I have a good friend how is Jewish, a member of my UU Congregation, and 
    part of a Interfaith Jewish/Christian Marriage and Family.
    
    He is also one of the most giving and loving people I know.
    
    I cannot and will not forget his comment of how insulted he is
    everytime he does something Good and people tell him what a good
    Christian thing that is to do.
    
    I think in their minds people who are making the comment are trying to
    be accepting.  Beginning to perhaps feel that being a Christian is not
    about believing but about how a person lives their life.  The inference
    is, "well maybe you really are a Christian, you certainly are bearing
    Good fruit in your life."  I believe he would prefer people to
    understand that he bears good fruit because he is a man of the Jewish
    faith, and what is required of him is clearly written on his heart.
    
    When evaluating the truth claims of Christianity, I need to remind
    myself of this conversation.
    
                                  Patricia

	.17
    
    	Back to more "christian perspectives", I see.  Lately the tenor 
    	of this conference has appeared to me to be outright attacks
    	of Christianity, not discussion or promotion thereof.
    
    	I will not stand by idly and ignore it.
    
>steve, christians only get the "moral high ground" if you let them have the 
>moral high ground. 
    
    	What is so wrong with Christian morailty?  Why do you portray
    	it as such a problem?
    
>fwiw, practising christians _are_ today a minority so they 
>should not pose a threat. 
    
    	Why are practising Christians a threat to you?

>.15>	However I *do* have my ideas
>.15>	about what a "good moral foundation" implies, which is certainly
>.15>	subject to debate -- especially here.
>
>i would like to hear your ideas, i am sure you have a few good ones.

    	Sorry.  First of all I see no reason to drag this topic into
    	a tit-for-tat over each point of what I consider to be "morality."
    	Suffice it to say that I quite closely follow traditional Catholic
    	beliefs, so make any judgement you want, and I suspect that you'll
    	be quite close.
    
    	Secondly, I wouldn't want to threaten you with my "moral high
    	ground" as a "practicing Christian".  (Translation:  I am quite
    	offended by your statement, and I'm shaking the dust from my
    	feet as I turn my back on your request.)

    Andreas,
    
    
    "practicing christians are today a minority so they
    should not pose a threat" may be an unfortunate choice of words.
    
    Fundementalist Christians certainly are a threat here particularly to
    Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexuals, Women fighting for the right and  equality of
    all people, and women who are seeking abortion and defending the rights
    of others to seek abortions, as well as to people of other faiths than
    Christianity.
    
    Christians that are truly practicing Jesus' commandment of love are a
    bright force in the world.
    
    It is unfortunate that all Christians get branded because of the
    intolerance of some even if the some is a vocal group.
    
                                     Patricia
    
    
                             

.20> Lately the tenor of this conference has appeared to me to be outright 
.20> attacks of Christianity, not discussion or promotion thereof.

if any of my notes caused offence, i kindly request you to show me which notes 
offended and why they offended. i don't enter my notes with the intention to 
offend. most often i enter my notes with the intention to provoke discussion, 
since i am myself unclear on the issue.


.20> What is so wrong with Christian morailty?  Why do you portray
.20> it as such a problem?

personally, i am not sure. i am still working on the question whether being 
raised with a christian moral foundation is still better than being raised 
without any moral foundation. you cannot possibly understand this question.
what it comes down to for me, having grown up in a christian environment, is 
whether a "christian moral foundation" does more damage than good. intuitively
i'd go with the latter, keeping the dangers of a fundamentalist upbringing in
mind. a discussion might just clarify.

                             
.20> Why are practising Christians a threat to you?

the wording was wrong. i cannot globally throw all christians in the same 
corner. sorry. practicing christians are not a threat to me, in fact, quite 
the opposite, i feel very close to many practicing christians.
followers of any religion who take religious scripture literally and who try 
to establish globally binding rules out of *their* interpretation and opinion 
of scripture, are a threat to me. 
i perceive any adult who tries to impose his/her personal rules on other 
adults as a potential threat. in my view, amongst adults, rules which extend 
beyond the individual should be made by agreement, else they are potentially
meaningless.


.20> Secondly, I wouldn't want to threaten you with my "moral high
.20> ground" as a "practicing Christian".  (Translation:  I am quite
.20> offended by your statement, and I'm shaking the dust from my
.20> feet as I turn my back on your request.)

as i said, i had no intention of offending. i would very much like to apologise
but i do not see the offence.  though i expect that a discussion down this track
might well end in a series of offences either side (much like the recent entries
in the processing topic spawned by a well intended remark in the visions topic).

all i can guess from your statement above is that you perceive me as not taking
you seriously because you are a practicing christian. this is not the case.
so far i read you as an outspoken and original person, which is why i asked 
for your point of view. in the hope of learning something!


never mind! 


andreas.

.22>if any of my notes caused offence, i kindly request you to show me which notes 
>offended and why they offended. 
    
    	I gave you one example.  Are you asking me to complain about
    	each time you offend me and my faith?  
    
    	To what end?
    
    	And you are not the only one doing so.  Your note that I referenced
    	just happened the one that jingled my chain the most at the time,
    	so don't take my words solely upon your shoulders.

> Are you asking me to complain about each time you offend me and my faith?  

of course. i am quick to complain aswell if something goes against my grain
and i feel strongly about it.
    
> To what end?

to discuss. to clear the air. to avoid getting up-tight. to act as colleagues 
do. to maybe learn a little. to... are you serious??


andreas.

    	Well sorry, Andreas, but I've done enough complaining here already.
    
    	My position is already well known.