Forced to be Christian

[mpjh]

Yes, we know you are willing to accept racist profiling and treatment of others, nappy, we have heard this from you before.

I wonder how all these individuals stating it's a logical loophole to exile threats during unstable, tense political eras feel about the current states of Muslim individuals located in their countries. Would forcing them to be converted to another religion or expelling them from the country be a viable solution to the minute potential that they have something to do with terrorist operations?

No, I don't support this opinion. In fact, I think people who do support opinions similar to this are incompetent and need to pull their heads out of their asses. I'm simply questioning why you feel it was okay then, and not now. Or, why you're arrogant enough to think it's okay period. There may be FAR less potential for them to be involved in such operations- but they have far more powerful weapons than the expelled individuals who are the subject of debate.

You don't understand the difference with how things were taken care of at the time? You're using today's morals to condemn the actions of a past situation. Are you going to say someone who took a slave back in the 1700's in America for plantations were damned people that were completely immoral as a whole? Or was it just that's how they were raised - such is how society works and has worked before. All your neighbors support the exact same thing, and the slaves are needed for your economic well-being.

Look at it from today's standards, slavery was very immoral. But in the context, it's nothing more than "what else am I supposed to do to live? That's how society works." Am I saying what the Spanish did were morally right? No. I'm saying that in the context of their situation they did it with the better intentions for the best of the country. Different morals applied to the situations then.

It's similar to Kant's philosophy - morality can only be determined from one's intentions. If one enjoys giving to the poor and has satisfaction from it which makes their own life better, there is no moral worth. Why? Because they did it not to help the poor, but because it makes them feel good about themselves. Only giving to the poor and NOT wanting to do it has moral worth, because it shows that you did the right thing even though it wasn't going to help you in any way. That's just a nutshell of however many damn scripts he wrote.

I agree with what you're saying, and must note props on the Kant, one of my top three philosophers

If a large number of individuals in the United States (ie: soon after 9/11) felt that expelling Muslim individuals was right (let's just assume hypothetically it was a majority) would that make it morally right? Simply because it was what a good proportion of society felt they should do, though it was simply an ignorant statement made out of fear?

I just like to think that there's better ways of handling things than profiling, exiling, exterminating, etc...

Call me an optimist if you'd like

You're applying YOUR moral standards as if they were absolute. Morals are not necessarily universal (which is my opinion and is a whole debate in itself, with God knows how many philosophers will disagree with what I just said), but relative to the society they are in.

First let it be known, and I think it is relevant, I don't believe in God, or a moral God at least (so out goes the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc.). So morals are developed by humans to determine what is "right." You're asking me if I believe it would be "right" to expel all the Muslims after 9/11. Well - you're asking ME. Do I believe it's right? No - because I'm applying my own morals to the situation. Do THEY believe they are right? Well you already stated it's a premise to the question, so of course they believe they are morally right in doing it. How I view the situation is completely irrelevant to the context of their situation. They are justified in doing so because that is what they know - from my personal view of ignorance (while such people may in fact believe I am the ignorant one for believing it ISN'T right to expel them).

There is no absolute "yes it is right." It depends on who's analyzing the situation. I can say they are morally wrong, but it doesn't mean the act is morally wrong. It's simply what I garner from the situation from my own beliefs.

I don't think it is a "moral" question. I think it is a question of human dignity, and the essential freedom needed to ensure justice. There is no context that justifies removing the freedom of a people, eliminating justice, and denying them dignity in life. Excusing the past when these horrific acts occurred, can only create an excuse for similar acts today. Because I believe that it is largely religious consideration that drove these past action, we need to keep religion out of our civil life.

[Napoleon Ier]

Oh dear Lord... this is just too good. Who else is on the list, Sponge-Bob-Square-Pants™ and Elton John?

Comments like these are why your puerile self is on my foe list. The forum has become surprisingly more interesting and mature since I ceased to see your comments.

Grow up.

Funny then how you only respond to the times when I lightly jostle you and not to any of the actual content of my posts, eh? Even when supposedly trying to "ignore" me like a petulant 5 year old with no friends would...

[mpjh]

I think lucy is ignoring you as an adult would ignore a child winning about not getting the candy.

[FabledIntegral]

You're applying YOUR moral standards as if they were absolute. Morals are not necessarily universal (which is my opinion and is a whole debate in itself, with God knows how many philosophers will disagree with what I just said), but relative to the society they are in.

First let it be known, and I think it is relevant, I don't believe in God, or a moral God at least (so out goes the Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc.). So morals are developed by humans to determine what is "right." You're asking me if I believe it would be "right" to expel all the Muslims after 9/11. Well - you're asking ME. Do I believe it's right? No - because I'm applying my own morals to the situation. Do THEY believe they are right? Well you already stated it's a premise to the question, so of course they believe they are morally right in doing it. How I view the situation is completely irrelevant to the context of their situation. They are justified in doing so because that is what they know - from my personal view of ignorance (while such people may in fact believe I am the ignorant one for believing it ISN'T right to expel them).

There is no absolute "yes it is right." It depends on who's analyzing the situation. I can say they are morally wrong, but it doesn't mean the act is morally wrong. It's simply what I garner from the situation from my own beliefs.

Well I suppose we can't really make a solid statement on it then, as everyone is going to have different views of morals from every possible angle.

Do YOU personally feel that Christians were right in expelling Jews? That's where my problem was. I understand people can look back and say 'It's what they thought was best', but if it wasn't best- does that not make it wrong? It's an act instigated through ignorance. Though it seemed right at the time (like all of the other situations/hypothetical situations presented), we can look back and say it wasn't.

Obviously we can't determine moral culpability because we're all going to disagree on what morals are. I do agree with what MP had to say though, in that we can't simply say 'They were right because they thought they were right' and dismiss it at that. We need to learn from our mistakes, not pardon them.

But still - the point remains. I believe it was the right thing to do in the context of their situation. What else would you expect from them? Would you expect a slave owner who's livelihood depended on such slaves to suddenly give them all away from freedom because it's what some other person thought was right, even though he thought it was fine to keep them? Of course not! Do I believe the person was wrong to have slaves in his context? NO. Do I believe slavery is morally wrong? YES.

It's exactly what you said "It's what they thought was best." They could have done better (from what WE garner is better), but it's absolutely ridiculous to expect them to have. Thus by our standards, yes the actions were wrong, and I do understand that an apology is necessary, but the OP, mpjh, has already stated he thinks an apology isn't enough, where he said "they think they can just apologize and have it go away," or something of that nature. What else do you expect from an act made 400 years ago? Sudden handouts by the government? The only thing they can do is acknowledge that it wasn't the right thing to do, but it was done. Had the government realiezd they were wrong AT THAT TIME, it could have been different, such as the US trying to give handouts to all the Japanese who were forced into internment camps. What else are they going to do? Was it morally wrong? Yes. Should they apologize? Yes. But that's about it... (and the handouts were ultimately pathetic like $700 per person or something?).

[muy_thaiguy]

Excusing the past when these horrific acts occurred, can only create an excuse for similar acts today. This is why we need religion out of our civil life, because regligious leaders a capable of such cruelty when left to their own devices.

The first part was fine, this part, however, is complete and utter bull. Do the names Stalin, Mao, and Robespierre mean nothing to you? These men went with secular governments, and hundreds, if not thousands were killed under Robespierre, 20 million under Stalin, and at least 40 million, if not more, under Mao. And these men supported, and installed secular governments and even enforced secularism throughout their lands. The US is not, and hopefully never will be, a secular government, as many of the people in the government, whether they are in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch, have a religion that does influence their actions one way or another. And, it is the fact that there are so many of them, there are many different religions in the government which leads to the better understanding of other beliefs, not casting them all out as you are, and yes you ARE, suggesting.

[lgoasklucyl]

But still - the point remains. I believe it was the right thing to do in the context of their situation. What else would you expect from them? Would you expect a slave owner who's livelihood depended on such slaves to suddenly give them all away from freedom because it's what some other person thought was right, even though he thought it was fine to keep them? Of course not! Do I believe the person was wrong to have slaves in his context? NO. Do I believe slavery is morally wrong? YES.

It's exactly what you said "It's what they thought was best." They could have done better (from what WE garner is better), but it's absolutely ridiculous to expect them to have. Thus by our standards, yes the actions were wrong, and I do understand that an apology is necessary, but the OP, mpjh, has already stated he thinks an apology isn't enough, where he said "they think they can just apologize and have it go away," or something of that nature. What else do you expect from an act made 400 years ago? Sudden handouts by the government? The only thing they can do is acknowledge that it wasn't the right thing to do, but it was done. Had the government realiezd they were wrong AT THAT TIME, it could have been different, such as the US trying to give handouts to all the Japanese who were forced into internment camps. What else are they going to do? Was it morally wrong? Yes. Should they apologize? Yes. But that's about it... (and the handouts were ultimately pathetic like $700 per person or something?).

Eh, I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise in either situation really. I tend to think the worst of people right off the bat, and assume a person wouldn't willingly work to protect the rights of a lesser individuals (Spain) or free a slave. So, I can understand why they wouldn't do it- but still won't say that it was the right thing to do at the time. The right thing to do remains protecting the rights and freedom of individuals, even in times of severe political pressure.

So: I can understand why they did it and wouldn't expect otherwise from them, yet still feel they were wrong in doing so. I don't think an apology is going to change anything, based on the time lapse and an apology or said payment not changing anything. We just need to accept that many people (especially government officials) will act in their own interest when placed under extreme pressure. Yes it was wrong for them to act this way but at the time it seemed the best option (at least for self preservation) and there's nothing that can be done to change it now.

[FabledIntegral]

I don't think it is a "moral" question. I think it is a question of human dignity, and the essential freedom needed to ensure justice. There is no context that justifies removing the freedom of a people, eliminating justice, and denying them dignity in life. Excusing the past when these horrific acts occurred, can only create an excuse for similar acts today. Because I believe that it is largely religious consideration that drove these past action, we need to keep religion out of our civil life.

I'm a little confused by the exact meaning of your first sentence - but I'm going to give my input anyways.

You're still placing your own standards on the situation. Due to the time period you've been born under, you've come to cherish such liberties that were never considered essential in the past by a wide array of people. It sounds as if you're portraying it was common sense that such liberties should be applied to everyone, when it was commonly thought in the past it was a king's divine right to rule the people from birth. Yet you're insisting your moral standards be accepted and applied to all eras, even when it wasn't the same mentality of the time.

I've already stated that yes - in the current time context period I think it's wrong to do such things and wouldn't want them to happen again. I fully agree religion should be kept out of the civil life. But what more do you expect than an apology? I simply don't understand. To say "yes THEY (not WE) were wrong in the past, and we hope to move beyond that."

[CrazyAnglican]

Because I believe that it is largely religious consideration that drove these past action, we need to keep religion out of our civil life.

That opens the door to a whole lot of things that should be "kept out" of our civil life. The United States kept many Japanese Americans in internment camps during WWII. Is the influence of a representative republic also to be kept from civil life? Churches of today are actually participating in this thing called liberation theology, in advocation of freedom for the oppressed. Should that be kept out of civil life merely because some people from the churches of the past acted badly?

[FabledIntegral]

But still - the point remains. I believe it was the right thing to do in the context of their situation. What else would you expect from them? Would you expect a slave owner who's livelihood depended on such slaves to suddenly give them all away from freedom because it's what some other person thought was right, even though he thought it was fine to keep them? Of course not! Do I believe the person was wrong to have slaves in his context? NO. Do I believe slavery is morally wrong? YES.

It's exactly what you said "It's what they thought was best." They could have done better (from what WE garner is better), but it's absolutely ridiculous to expect them to have. Thus by our standards, yes the actions were wrong, and I do understand that an apology is necessary, but the OP, mpjh, has already stated he thinks an apology isn't enough, where he said "they think they can just apologize and have it go away," or something of that nature. What else do you expect from an act made 400 years ago? Sudden handouts by the government? The only thing they can do is acknowledge that it wasn't the right thing to do, but it was done. Had the government realiezd they were wrong AT THAT TIME, it could have been different, such as the US trying to give handouts to all the Japanese who were forced into internment camps. What else are they going to do? Was it morally wrong? Yes. Should they apologize? Yes. But that's about it... (and the handouts were ultimately pathetic like $700 per person or something?).

Eh, I wouldn't expect them to do otherwise in either situation really. I tend to think the worst of people right off the bat, and assume a person wouldn't willingly work to protect the rights of a lesser individuals (Spain) or free a slave. So, I can understand why they wouldn't do it- but still won't say that it was the right thing to do at the time. The right thing to do remains protecting the rights and freedom of individuals, even in times of severe political pressure.

So: I can understand why they did it and wouldn't expect otherwise from them, yet still feel they were wrong in doing so. I don't think an apology is going to change anything, based on the time lapse and an apology or said payment not changing anything. We just need to accept that many people (especially government officials) will act in their own interest when placed under extreme pressure. Yes it was wrong for them to act this way but at the time it seemed the best option (at least for self preservation) and there's nothing that can be done to change it now.

I think morality all boils down to intention. "What was their intention when doing this." If it was done with good intention (which is nigh impossible to actually derive), then it's morally permissible. If someone took an AK-47 and shot up 100 people before being taken down, but did it because he thought it was the "right," thing to do, not only do I personally think his actions were "wrong" (and he was a nutcase), but he wasn't necessarily a "bad" person. I believe he's wrong, he believes he's right... who's to say whose sense of morality is more "right"? As I don't believe in a God, it's all relative. All I can do is try to promote what I think is the best of a situation and convince others that my sense of morality is the "best," but it's only because of the environment I was born in.

So sure we can say the actions were wrong, but as we've agreed on, we shouldn't have expected them to do anything else. What I disagree on is your last statement, as it's once again relative. Who's to say that's what's truly right? You only believe that because that is the type of thinking our era has produced... yet you're saying that it's universally "right" and should be applied to all contexts, including being applied to that slave owner. So I believe slavery was wrong, but he individually was not necessarily wrong in owning a slave, it depends more on the context of his situation and his intentions.

[mpjh]

Because I believe that it is largely religious consideration that drove these past action, we need to keep religion out of our civil life.

That opens the door to a whole lot of things that should be "kept out" of our civil life. The United States kept many Japanese Americans in internment camps during WWII. Is the influence of a representative republic also to be kept from civil life? Churches of today are actually participating in this thing called liberation theology, in advocation of freedom for the oppressed. Should that be kept out of civil life merely because some people from the churches of the past acted badly?

Actually, keeping religion out of our civil life is exactly what our constitution does. It doesn't bar religion, it simply keeps it out of government, and government out of it.

[CrazyAnglican]

Excusing the past when these horrific acts occurred, can only create an excuse for similar acts today. This is why we need religion out of our civil life, because regligious leaders a capable of such cruelty when left to their own devices.[/quote] The first part was fine, this part, however, is complete and utter bull. Do the names Stalin, Mao, and Robespierre mean nothing to you? These men went with secular governments, and hundreds, if not thousands were killed under Robespierre, 20 million under Stalin, and at least 40 million, if not more, under Mao. And these men supported, and installed secular governments and even enforced secularism throughout their lands. The US is not, and hopefully never will be, a secular government, as many of the people in the government, whether they are in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branch, have a religion that does influence their actions one way or another. And, it is the fact that there are so many of them, there are many different religions in the government which leads to the better understanding of other beliefs, not casting them all out as you are, and yes you ARE, suggesting.

I certainly concur. Religious figures are also capable of great compassion and acts of wonderful charity when "left to their own devices" as well. Does the person who made the initial argument (I'm not who as it's not in MTG's quote) really suggest that religious figures have a lock on cruelty? That's absurd many secular leaders throughout that last hundred years alone have made the Middle Ages seem a time of enlightened benefactors. If merely by the fact that they had much more ability to oppress, kill, maim and torture people with greater efficiency and ease.

[mpjh]

I am not proposing that we eliminate religious leaders. I am simply saying that they keep their religion out of government, and government should stay out of religion. That is what our constitution provides, and that is one of the great contributions of this country to the world.

[CrazyAnglican]

Because I believe that it is largely religious consideration that drove these past action, we need to keep religion out of our civil life.

That opens the door to a whole lot of things that should be "kept out" of our civil life. The United States kept many Japanese Americans in internment camps during WWII. Is the influence of a representative republic also to be kept from civil life? Churches of today are actually participating in this thing called liberation theology, in advocation of freedom for the oppressed. Should that be kept out of civil life merely because some people from the churches of the past acted badly?

Actually, keeping religion out of our civil life is exactly what our constitution does. It doesn't bar religion, it simply keeps it out of government, and government out of it.

Which proves my point. Our government, under the U.S. Constitution that "bars religion" as you put it, took the liberty of masses of Japanese-Americans based on nothing more than their national heritage. Removing religion from civil life apparently does nothing to guarentee that no atrocities will occur. "The Reign of Terror" after the French Revolution was secular; many people with antipathy for religion participated in it, and the Churches of the time definitely did not support it.

[FabledIntegral]

Just because religion can do good, however, doesn't mean it should be in the government. I can do good as well and be atheist. Neither beliefs are even relevant to the government. "Doing good acts," isn't enough to tear down separation of church and state. I don't care if the church has 100% perfection in accomplishing humanitarian acts... it still stays separate from the government (not saying you believe otherwise, I know you were refuting a different statement, it merely looks like it's headed in that direction).

[lgoasklucyl]

Just because religion can do good, however, doesn't mean it should be in the government. I can do good as well and be atheist. Neither beliefs are even relevant to the government. "Doing good acts," isn't enough to tear down separation of church and state. I don't care if the church has 100% perfection in accomplishing humanitarian acts... it still stays separate from the government (not saying you believe otherwise, I know you were refuting a different statement, it merely looks like it's headed in that direction).

I don't think CA was saying it should be included in the government- rather that you can't blame religion being there for the atrocities performed by the government so much as you can blame atheists for other atrocities. That the government is just as stupid with or without the backing of religious ideals.

We all know I don't agree with CA, that's just what I thought he was saying

[FabledIntegral]

Just because religion can do good, however, doesn't mean it should be in the government. I can do good as well and be atheist. Neither beliefs are even relevant to the government. "Doing good acts," isn't enough to tear down separation of church and state. I don't care if the church has 100% perfection in accomplishing humanitarian acts... it still stays separate from the government (not saying you believe otherwise, I know you were refuting a different statement, it merely looks like it's headed in that direction).

I don't think CA was saying it should be included in the government- rather that you can't blame religion being there for the atrocities performed by the government so much as you can blame atheists for other atrocities. That the government is just as stupid with or without the backing of religious ideals.

We all know I don't agree with CA, that's just what I thought he was saying

Oh I understand, hence the parenthesis at the end of my comment. I just felt like we were getting to the point, although I know CA might believe otherwise, other people might imply such. It was like getting a headstart to prevent it from ever getting to that point.

[lgoasklucyl]

Good call. People tend to be really good at derailing conversations like these, I can understand why you would want to be prepared

[CrazyAnglican]

Now. I think that we should probably define "civil life". I do not really advocate a marriage of Church and State, but I certainly do not advocate removing religion from "civil life" which I interpret to mean secular life. Churches should have the right to evangelize and spread their message, certainly; their members are citizens with the same right to teach about their opinons as anyone else. Thanks lgoasklucyl that's pretty much exactly what I was saying.
No church should be allowed to directly affect governmental policy. If a majority of citizens back a particular policy, though, that's pretty much how legislation is supposed to work in the U.S.. The courts, ideally, are there to see that the rights of individuals are not infringed.

[FabledIntegral]

Now. I think that we should probably define "civil life". I do not really advocate a marriage of Church and State, but I certainly do not advocate removing religion from "civil life" which I interpret to mean secular life. Churches should have the right to evangelize and spread their message, certainly; their members are citizens with the same right to teach about their opinons as anyone else. Thanks lgoasklucyl that's pretty much exactly what I was saying.

By civil life he most likely means government.

Churches should have the right to spread their message... free speech. Just as I can go condemn them and follow them to every large meeting and hold my own hate filled speech in a park next to them. If I wanted to be a complete asshole douchebag that is.

[CrazyAnglican]

By civil life he most likely means government.

Churches should have the right to spread their message... free speech. Just as I can go condemn them and follow them to every large meeting and hold my own hate filled speech in a park next to them. If I wanted to be a complete asshole douchebag that is.

Sure, no argument there, but the converse is the whole "Go nuts, do what you want in private, but you shouldn't be allowed to do this or that which might influence my kids in public". The state has to adhere to a neutrality toward religion but we can't forget the "nor establish laws inhibiting the free practice thereof" part of the constitution as well.

Anyway that's a bit of a derail I think. My main point was that secular organizations do at least as much evil, and quite arguably more than religious organizations in general, today. Certainly there are terrorist cells that are religious, but there are those that are secular as well, etc.

[FabledIntegral]

By civil life he most likely means government.

Churches should have the right to spread their message... free speech. Just as I can go condemn them and follow them to every large meeting and hold my own hate filled speech in a park next to them. If I wanted to be a complete asshole douchebag that is.

Sure, no argument there, but the converse is the whole "Go nuts, do what you want in private, but you shouldn't be allowed to do this or that which might influence my kids in public". The state has to adhere to a neutrality toward religion but we can't forget the "nor establish laws inhibiting the free practice thereof" part of the constitution as well.

Anyway that's a bit of a derail I think. My main point was that secular organizations do at least as much evil, and quite arguably more than religious organizations in general, today. Certainly there are terrorist cells that are religious, but there are those that are secular as well, etc.

I think it's just as bad to lump secular governments together when they are so completely diverse as it is to compare past religious activities to current religious activities. Compare a particular government and what happens within that government, imo. Some secular governments like the Soviet Union run under Stalin were terrible, sure, but that argument is the exact same as the argument you're arguing against (which was the argument that religious organizations have caused evil in the past).

[mpjh]

I think the principle difference is this:

Secular governments have to answer to the people that give them the power to govern. These people determine the ethics and actions of the government.

Governments based on religion do not have to answer to the people from which their power flows, but claim that a higher power (god) directs their actions. This usually means some church official calls the shots.

I will take the first any day over the second. In fact the first is our form of government at least its fundamental aspiration.

[lgoasklucyl]

I think the principle difference is this:

Secular governments have to answer to the people that give them the power to govern. These people determine the ethics and actions of the government.

Governments based on religion do not have to answer to the people from which their power flows, but claim that a higher power (god) directs their actions. This usually means some church official calls the shots.

I will take the first any day over the second. In fact the first is our form of government at least its fundamental aspiration.

Wouldn't derivatives exist though?

ie: A secular government in a society where a religious belief can have a large influence on the actions of the government? It's not based on religion, per se, but many of its decision may still be influenced by the religious beliefs of those encompassed within its jurisdiction.

[CrazyAnglican]

I think it's just as bad to lump secular governments together when they are so completely diverse as it is to compare past religious activities to current religious activities. Compare a particular government and what happens within that government, imo. Some secular governments like the Soviet Union run under Stalin were terrible, sure, but that argument is the exact same as the argument you're arguing against (which was the argument that religious organizations have caused evil in the past).

I agree, but the difference is that I think secular governments are a good thing as well. I'm not arguing against the existence of secular governments; I am merely pointing out that humans are suceptible to the same failings no matter what they believe, and some will seek power for their own self interest no matter what the current power structure might be. The guys that weilded the powers of the church to commit atrocities in the Middle Ages are not that different to those weilding secular power to commit atrocities today.

Mpjh, I think you might be confusing secular with democractic or representative republic forms of government. The People's Republic of China is secular as is the government in north Korea. Secular only means "not pertaining to, or independent from religion". Any government in which a religion has no direct role in establishing policy is secular.

[mpjh]

No I mean secular, i.e. a government established with no official religion. The difference with the Korean and other secular governments and the one established by the constitution in this country is the concept that the people hold all power and delegate to the government specific enumerated powers. In Korea, for example, a party rules with power not derived from the people, but forced on them.

I don't object to religious people participating in government, so long as they respect the secular nature of our constitution.