Read the article at the link shown. www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-agin/on-politics-religion-and_b_144091.html Then ponder the question: Is there a difference between religion and morals? If so, what is the difference (or are the differences)?
I love www.dictionary.com. If you look up "religion" at that site, the first definition you get reads: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs." Notice here that a religion generally involves a code of morals, but speaks to many more issues not within the scope of morality.
If you look up "morals" the first definition you find reads: "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical."
One of the great deceptions worked by lawyers and judges across the land is that of confusing the American people about the meaning of the separation of church and state. People like Mr. Agin would have us believe that religion and morals are the exact same thing. They would try to convince us that church and morals are identical and to be banished from all political and government discusses altogether.
What gets me is Mr. Agin understands and agrees that morals should be, and indeed must be codified, hence his call conclusion that governments should prohibit homicide. Yet he fails to see that one's opinion on gay marriage is also a moral issue, not a religious one. There are many religions, both Christian and non-Christian, that do not support gay marriage. There are athiests and agnostics who oppose gay marriage (I say with personal knowledge).
What's more, Mr. Agin failed to explain to us exactly how the "religious group...impose[d] its values on other people." Wasn't there a vote on Proposition 8? Wasn't each individual able to vote the way he or she chose? Why is it inappropriate then, given the democracy in which we live, that those who did not support Prop 8 should be subject to the law that was passed? What about those individuals whose morals dictate to them that homicide is acceptable? Is it okay that the majority of the electorate impose their values on them? I see no difference between the two scenarios.
By the way, Christians should not be labeled one "religious group" in general. There are many religions that believe that Christ was the Savior of the world, including Catholics, Seventh Day Adventists, Baptists, Mormons, etc. Why does Mr. Agin feel compelled to lump all these religions into one group? Because they adhere to a similar, if not the same, code of morals. When it comes to politics, gay marriage is a moral issue, not a religious one.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Time to get on the Obama bandwaggon.
Yes, I think it is finally time to get on the Obama bandwaggon.
Just don't send me to the camps.
Just don't send me to the camps.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
What Opponents to Proposition 8 Won’t Admit
On November 4, 2008, voters in California had the opportunity to vote on Proposition 8. Proposition 8, if enacted, would amend the California Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman. It would effectively overturn a 2008 California Supreme Court decision that, for the first time in California’s history, gave individuals the right to marry another of the same sex. The Proposition passed with approximately 52% of the votes.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the arguments made by the opponents of Proposition 8. The two most common arguments made by those who support same-sex marriage were 1) that the government should not legislate morals and 2) that to deny an individual the ability to marry someone of the same sex is discriminatory, wrong and unfair; therefore, those who support Proposition 8 are bigots. Let’s tackle each of these arguments.
The first argument was that the government should not legislate morals. This argument is the most astonishing because of its absurdity. One of the primary and most basic roles of government is to legislate morals. Upon typing the word “moral” into http://www.dictionary.com/, the first result you will see reads: “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.” The argument commonly goes something like this: the government should not codify the beliefs of the Christian right because it takes away other people’s beautiful experiences and happiness. So it is wrong to take others’ joyful experiences away from them. Let’s look at a few examples of legislated morals.
With the first example we can look at driving under the influence of alcohol. Regardless of how much enjoyment people get out of driving while under the influence of alcohol, the government has prohibited and criminalized the act. The vast majority of people agree with the government’s point of view. The voters and the government agree that it is wrong to drink and drive and it is right to penalize someone for doing so. This is a moral judgment legislated.
Another example involves tax law. There are those who believe that it is appropriate and right that those who make more money should be contributing a larger portion of their income to the common good. Others believe it is appropriate and fair that everyone contribute an equal portion of their income to the common good. These are moral preferences that are legislated.
It is safe to say that, when pressed, the opponents of Prop 8 would agree that, in fact, the government should legislate morals. They just don’t want morals that differ from theirs to be enacted as legislation; they want their own morals to become law. None of the protestors made a fuss when the California Supreme Court made the law that created the fundamental right of same-sex marriage.
That brings us to the second argument, which is to deny an individual the ability to marry someone of the same sex is discriminatory, wrong and unfair. If we look for the definition of “discriminate” in http://www.dictionary.com/, we read: “to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit.” The Prop 8 opponents loudly declared that everyone who supported Prop 8 were prejudiced, bigots, and discriminatory. In other words, the opponents lambasted an easily-identifiable class of individuals (supporters of Prop 8) solely because they fell in that category. The biggest problem with this accusation is that the opponents of Prop 8 either did not know what “discriminate” means, or they did know but did not care. To simply support Proposition 8 does not make a person a bigot. If a person says, “I hate gay people; I want them to be unhappy; I do not want them to be able to marry; and therefore I support Proposition 8,” it is safe to say that that person is bigoted because he is making a distinction against a class of people on the basis of the class rather than according to actual merit. However, if an individual says, “I understand the circumstances and hopes of those who wish to enter into same-sex marriages. I also understand the rights already afforded to those in domestic partnerships. I also understand the consequences that will likely result from same-sex marriages. Overall, I am more concerned about the consequences—negative consequences—that will result from allowing same-sex marriage than I am concerned about the consequences of disallowing same-sex marriages,” it is safe to say that that person is not a bigot at all, any more than an individual who says, “I understand the joys that alcoholics get from driving while drunk, and I understand the negative consequences of drunk driving, and I fall down on the side of disallowing drunk driving.” The point here is not to compare drunk driving with same-sex marriages. The point is that with every political issue, voters are faced with a choice of supporting one preference over another preference. Coming down on one side of the issue over another does not make a person a bigot; it makes the person a rational thinker.
The bottom line is that the arguments opposing Proposition 8 were irrational and inconsistent. It seemed those opposing Prop 8 were only concerned with being heard instead of being persuasive. Assuming an intelligent and informed electorate, Prop 8 was bound to succeed.
The purpose of this article is to analyze the arguments made by the opponents of Proposition 8. The two most common arguments made by those who support same-sex marriage were 1) that the government should not legislate morals and 2) that to deny an individual the ability to marry someone of the same sex is discriminatory, wrong and unfair; therefore, those who support Proposition 8 are bigots. Let’s tackle each of these arguments.
The first argument was that the government should not legislate morals. This argument is the most astonishing because of its absurdity. One of the primary and most basic roles of government is to legislate morals. Upon typing the word “moral” into http://www.dictionary.com/, the first result you will see reads: “of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.” The argument commonly goes something like this: the government should not codify the beliefs of the Christian right because it takes away other people’s beautiful experiences and happiness. So it is wrong to take others’ joyful experiences away from them. Let’s look at a few examples of legislated morals.
With the first example we can look at driving under the influence of alcohol. Regardless of how much enjoyment people get out of driving while under the influence of alcohol, the government has prohibited and criminalized the act. The vast majority of people agree with the government’s point of view. The voters and the government agree that it is wrong to drink and drive and it is right to penalize someone for doing so. This is a moral judgment legislated.
Another example involves tax law. There are those who believe that it is appropriate and right that those who make more money should be contributing a larger portion of their income to the common good. Others believe it is appropriate and fair that everyone contribute an equal portion of their income to the common good. These are moral preferences that are legislated.
It is safe to say that, when pressed, the opponents of Prop 8 would agree that, in fact, the government should legislate morals. They just don’t want morals that differ from theirs to be enacted as legislation; they want their own morals to become law. None of the protestors made a fuss when the California Supreme Court made the law that created the fundamental right of same-sex marriage.
That brings us to the second argument, which is to deny an individual the ability to marry someone of the same sex is discriminatory, wrong and unfair. If we look for the definition of “discriminate” in http://www.dictionary.com/, we read: “to make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category to which the person or thing belongs rather than according to actual merit.” The Prop 8 opponents loudly declared that everyone who supported Prop 8 were prejudiced, bigots, and discriminatory. In other words, the opponents lambasted an easily-identifiable class of individuals (supporters of Prop 8) solely because they fell in that category. The biggest problem with this accusation is that the opponents of Prop 8 either did not know what “discriminate” means, or they did know but did not care. To simply support Proposition 8 does not make a person a bigot. If a person says, “I hate gay people; I want them to be unhappy; I do not want them to be able to marry; and therefore I support Proposition 8,” it is safe to say that that person is bigoted because he is making a distinction against a class of people on the basis of the class rather than according to actual merit. However, if an individual says, “I understand the circumstances and hopes of those who wish to enter into same-sex marriages. I also understand the rights already afforded to those in domestic partnerships. I also understand the consequences that will likely result from same-sex marriages. Overall, I am more concerned about the consequences—negative consequences—that will result from allowing same-sex marriage than I am concerned about the consequences of disallowing same-sex marriages,” it is safe to say that that person is not a bigot at all, any more than an individual who says, “I understand the joys that alcoholics get from driving while drunk, and I understand the negative consequences of drunk driving, and I fall down on the side of disallowing drunk driving.” The point here is not to compare drunk driving with same-sex marriages. The point is that with every political issue, voters are faced with a choice of supporting one preference over another preference. Coming down on one side of the issue over another does not make a person a bigot; it makes the person a rational thinker.
The bottom line is that the arguments opposing Proposition 8 were irrational and inconsistent. It seemed those opposing Prop 8 were only concerned with being heard instead of being persuasive. Assuming an intelligent and informed electorate, Prop 8 was bound to succeed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
