Published: Saturday, Dec. 29 2012 12:00 a.m. MST
Morality and belief in God are NOT the same thing. I know many Utahns find this
incredulous, but it is true. BTW: Whose "God" do you think we should
follow? Just a rhetorical question....I know the answer.
What is better about being divided and have millions of small organizations
duplicate the same hierarchies to get something done?A national
government is MUCH more efficient than 1 million small, powerless organizations.
Why don't we not worry about which God, because at the end of the day, most
of the worlds religions have some core tenants they share in common. Not
killing, not stealing, helping the poor and needy. So lets not worry about if
God has brown eyes, blue eyes, or what ever.In india we see a
non-chirstian nation rising up in revolt over the rape and eventual death of a
young lady. We don't need to agree which God is right or wrong, we can
agree no matter what religion one follows, these acts are not acceptable and
will not be tolerated.The only problem i have with the original
comments is the notion that "we the people" are distinctly separate from
the government. If we believe in the mantra of our nations founding fathers -
the government is "we the people". It is truly appropriate for us to
respond to events via our churches, our communities, and through our government.
They are not separate, but a system that is to work together.
"Where are the churches to teach moral correctness?"Religious
texts are some of the most violent books ever written. So I wouldn't say
they should be the standard bearers or moral correctness in the fight against
I'm sorry, but I don't want to be dictated to by your "moral
correctness". You'd impose your version on me and that would simply
create more divisiveness as I fought for my own rights.Morality is
relative. Religion is not the only bearer of morals. Your god may or may not
be the god others choose to follow. Teach your children, let others
When people resist goodness because they reject the concept of "God" we
have chaos. Too many demand that we listen to their "wisdom". They
relive the sorrow and confusion that others who rejected God have already lived.
They chase after their appetites and passions without religious restriction,
foolishly thinking that just because they reject God that they are immune from
the consequences of breaking eternal laws.Society suffers. Families
suffer. We suffer.The pride that some feel in their assumption that
they "know it all" becomes their greatest stumbling block. Knowledge of
God and acceptance of him in our lives shows proper humility when we contemplate
our "nothingness" in relation to all of his creations. He waits. He
has the solution. When we gain sufficient wisdom, we will listen to him. Until
then, we will suffer.
I am going to go w/ the consensus on this. In the book
Freakonomics; the author points out that, "Morality represents the way
people would like to work" Thus, it is subjective.We need to use
common sense more & be less judgmental.
Religion forcing so-called "morals" on humanity has done far more harm
As it happens, I believe in God, try to practice personal morality, and try to
teach it to my children. None of that is remotely relevant to the recent
shooting in Connecticut. The problem there wasn't that the killer
hadn't been taught standards of personal morality. His surviving family
members were as horrified as the rest of us by his actions. The problem was
that he was insane. I'm fully in favor of teaching morality in the
home. I'm also in favor of increasing funding for the treatment of mental
illness, even if that requires a tax increase.
Mike Richards,You are unable to separate your narrow concept of God from
basic and widespread human morality. People aren't rejecting
"goodness" by rejecting God. They are embracing goodness without also
tying themselves to religious belief. Why is this so difficult to understand?
Simply because you and some others are unhappy and rudderless without your
religion, it doesn't mean that millions of others cannot think for
themselves. A quote by the late Humanist Kurt Vonnegut sums this up nicely:"Being a Humanist means trying to behave decently without
expectation of rewards or punishment after you are dead"Think
about that one for awhile.
Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told. Religion is
doing what you are told regardless of what is right.
@Ranchhand"I'm sorry, but I don't want to be dictated to by
your "moral correctness"."On the plus side, if we were a
theocracy in this state maybe BYUs gun ban would be extended to the rest of the
schools in this state.
@ RanchHand. As a history buff, I think Pol Pot, Mao ste Tung, Karl Marx and
others had the same opinion about religion defining morality as you do. Are we
all allowed to decide what is moral then? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to
me. If each person gets to define morality for themselves, we are in serious
trouble because noting is immoral and nothing is moral, it depends on your
@mountain man and mike you surely cannot be arguing that proclaiming
a belief in god some how gives people some moral high ground. The many posters
on this threads that claim to be so religious have proven that false time and
again. religion or a "belief in god" does not bring one any closer to
acting in a moral or ethical manner.
Where does "goodness" come from? Where does life come from? Where does
order and harmony come from?Some may require a "bribe" to do
good. Some may do good because they fear the penalty of breaking the law. Some
try to do good because they love God and trust him enough to follow him because
they have faith enough to not need an excuse or a reward.The
"philosophies of men" are toddler babble compared to the doctrines of
God, but, apparently many prefer to follow those philosophies. Imagine a world
where many reject the source of righteousness. Does that explain why right has
become wrong, where many demand that government force "goodness". Does
that explain why many reject their responsibility to teach goodness to their
children?Goodness is not "relative". The source we use to
define "goodness" determines why we seek goodness in society.
Morals do appear "relative."Its hard to see the dividing
line between those who believe in God and those who don't practice
religion/believe in God that some believe exists. We have religious leaders
abusing children, committing adultery, and telling lies. We have
"religious" people judging those who are poor/don't owe federal
income tax, are gay, or appear to be immigrants, and demonizing those who have
differing opinions. They claim to care for life, while opposing contraception
which saves lives. They claim they uphold laws, believe in democracy and the
Constitution while arming themselves to supplant law enforcement, and the
democratic system of govt, established by the Constitution, where grievances and
policies are shaped at the ballot box. Being religious or believing
in God is not an accurate measure of what one's moral values or principles
are applied in life---which is why fewer people are choosing to become involved
with religious institutions.
The problem is, who do we trust to provide the control required to make us lead
a moral life. And who gets to define just what is a moral life. The fact of life is that we will be controlled by someone. And one of the
prime ingredients of freedom is having the “permission” to do what
we want to do. Sin was created by religion as a tool to overpower
the resistance that people might have in accepting the words of the enslavers.
By the automatic guilty verdict, people had to have the services of the men who
had direct contact with God. The groups we call government are the
only ones who have the right to force us to be and do as the group defines. But
that doesn’t stop all the other groups from trying to enforce their
version of right and wrong. Lacking the force option they must us imaginary
threats and consequences to obtain the control over others. It’s called
re: Mountanman 2:32 p.m. Dec. 29"...same opinion about
*religion* defining morality as you do. Are we all allowed to decide what is
moral then? Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me... If each person gets to
define morality for themselves, we are in serious trouble because noting is
immoral and nothing is moral, it depends on your *feelings*!"Allow me to point out the inconsistency; religion is based on feelings. So,
tell me why religion is the ultimate decider of morality?Ethics/morality has some basis consistent & rational thought.... unlike
Mountanman,"Are we all allowed to decide what is moral then?"As a Christian living in the modern ages, you already do. The Old
Testament is replete with archaic and extremist moral codes that no one in their
right mind follows today. And as a "history buff", you should already
know that religion has caused numerous barbaric conflicts throughout history, so
your example of Communist dictators being amoral because of their atheism is
ridiculous. Do I need to bring up Christian Spanish conquistadors or the
Taliban? Mike Richards,You didn't address my point that
most of the basic human morals exist independently of religion. Your entire
premise that all goodness comes from your god is without evidence, without
rational argument, and cannot explain why many non-Christian and non-religious
people throughout the ages have lived moral lives.
re: Emajor 12/29 at 16:52Here is another example... the Albigensian
Crusade. If you do some research, you'll find this example particulary
deplorable.If memory serves, it is where the quote, "Kill
'em all & let God sort them out" comes from
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments