Desegregate Marriage

I asked one of these crusaders to explain why marriage is only acceptable for a man and a woman. They responded by saying that the Bible states that only a man and a woman can be married and that domestic partnership is the correct way to define gay marriage. But then it occurred to me: A legal partnership between a male atheist and a female atheist is still considered a marriage. The individual agreed with me without pause. I was blown away.

It has been established by others that there are religious gays who do not agree with parts of scripture, but follow its other decrees. To forbid them something that even supposed heretics can enjoy is perposterous and a great insult. Marriage has transformed from a religious institution to a secular and legal institution.  There are certain activities that only a marriage can justify such as visitation rights. Some Prop 8 supporters say that in order to fix these issues all that needs to be done is change the wording in the regulations to allow members of domestic partnerships the same privileges. The simpler solution would be to allow anyone to marry. The social status of being married should be available to everyone regardless of race, sexual preference, or theology.

‘Gay fascists’ storm church, attack members

‘Gay’ activists engage in ‘hate crimes’ against Christians

Cass admits he wonders why the incidents have not been called hate crimes. “Had the same level of violence and rhetoric been directed toward homosexuals or their groups, there would be accusations of hate crimes,” he suggests.

OK, now for a thought experiment.  Let’s say it’s 40 years ago and a state or two just passed a law making it illegal for black men and women to get married to each other.  They are understandably upset, and some of them protest.  Some protests are peaceful, some are a bit intrusive.  There is no actual violence involved.  Now, some proponent of this law makes the following statement.

Cass admits he wonders why the incidents have not been called hate crimes. “Had the same level of violence and rhetoric been directed toward [blacks] or their groups, there would be accusations of hate crimes,” he suggests.

I hope this makes it evident how utterly ridiculous statements like this are.  The current situation with the liberties of homosexuals is just as much about civil rights.  The point to ponder is this….

Which group is trying to take civil rights away from the other, rights that they themselves wish to keep?

Ask yourself the above question when trying to discern who is being persecuted.

Flickr Attribution: Kyknoord

Morality defined in the American Heritage Dictionary:

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Morality comes down to the standards of right or wrong that an individual, community, or society hold. The motives, actions, and outcomes involved with the decisions we make in everyday life create our individual and collective sense of morality.

MORAL STANDARDS: RELATIVE OR ABSOLUTE?

Right or wrong is in the eye of the beholder, and there is no such thing as a universal, absolute truth. A perfectly acceptable practice in one culture may be completely wrong elsewhere. Most religious doctrines likewise have “rules to live by” stated in their texts which become part (but not all) of the believer’s sense of ethics and morality. Christian theism encourages followers to discard their former notions of morality and take on new ethics “on faith”. Most theists still maintain most of their own judgment regarding what is ethical and what is not. This can be for the simple fact that the world is vastly complex and interconnected, and thus there are no rules which can be applied in all situations, including the Christian commandments. People also maintain their own judgment of morality because the doctrine is simply obsolete or absurd.

For instance, take this example in the Christian Bible (Deurotomy 13:6-10 NRSV):

“If anyone secretly entices you, even if it is your brother, your father’s son or your mother’s son, or your own son or daughter, or the wife you embrace, or your most intimate friend saying, ‘Let us go worship other gods,’ whom neither you nor your ancestors have known, any of the gods of the peoples that are around you, whether near you or far away from you, from one end of the earth to the other, you must not yield to or heed any such persons. Show them no pity or compassion and do not shield them. But you shall surely kill them; your own hand shall be first against them to execute them, and afterwards the hand of all the people. Stone them to death for trying to turn you away from the LORD your God.”

This is the Christian Bible telling followers to kill their friends and family who entice them to worship other gods. Most Christians do not hold this as right in their own sense of morality.

MOTIVES

Does the motivation behind an action shed light on its moral nature? Absolutely. If a starving child must steal some food in order to survive, is it exactly the same as a bank robber who is well fed and has many alternatives? If you are a staunch Christian, you may point to “Thou Shalt Not Steal” and say yes, because the commandments do not take motivation into consideration. On the topic of tithing, is grudgingly giving your money because you are “God fearing” versus giving willingly because you want to help people the same from a moral perspective? No, the end does not justify the means. The reason has just as much impact as the doing. Someone who gives money to look good to others in their church is not on equal moral footing as someone who gives out of love for others they want to help.

ACTIONS

Actions are what the Christian commandments are all about. Actions are a big part of the determination of morality, in part because it is easy to see actions. You can’t see motivations, but actions can be caught on video. Killing another human being is immoral in most cases to most people. Is killing someone in self-defense versus killing someone for the fun of it the same? Of course not, they are very different in terms of motivation, even though the action was the same.

OUTCOMES

Motivations lead to actions, and actions lead to outcomes. Sometimes well intentioned people can do good things that result in bad outcomes. Did these people commit an immoral act? If they had no way of knowing the outcome would have been bad, I would say no. They made a mistake perhaps, but their intentions and behavior were moral. Most of the time however, outcomes are consistent with the motivations and actions, because normally it is a causal relationship. The whole chain needs to be considered when judging morality.

SUMMARY

In summary, true morality is the same for theists and atheists alike. Theists may claim a moral standard must be in place to judge against, but they do not really have one. Their doctrines offer a limited set of guidelines which may agree with true moral behavior to some extent within their culture of origin. They also offer guidelines which are inserted by individuals in pursuit of their own personal or spiritual agendas (ex. “you shall have no other gods before me”).

True ethical behavior and morality is the product of the complex sociological and psychological workings of the human race. It is judged within this context as well, if the judgment is to be objective. A subjective definition of morality holds no value for any except the individual and/or society who holds it, and those who wish to respect their particular brand of morality. If anything, atheists have the potential to have the truest set of morality because they are able to view any scenario objectively, without religious dogma thousands of years old impeding them.

REFERENCES

American Psychological Association (APA):
morality. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved March 16, 2007, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality

Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
morality. Dictionary.com. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/morality (accessed: March 16, 2007).

Modern Language Association (MLA):
“morality.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 16 Mar. 2007. .

Flickr Attribution: humbleslave

There are two schools of thought on this subject. One is that morality exists independent of any theist/atheist world view, and the other asserts that morality can not exist without a religious “standard” for comparison.

I believe that a standard must be in place in order to judge the morality. I also believe this standard has very little to do with organized religion or atheism. The moral standard used as the measuring stick for morality is a dynamic one, formed through the complexities played out both psychologically and sociologically in the culture being analyzed.

“Good” and “bad” are judged on personal, family, community, and cultural levels. I don’t believe in an absolute truth in moral behavior where “good” is defined the same for all people in all situations. For instance, it is ludicrous to me that an assertion of killing in self-defense is the same as killing for fun. Some theistic doctrines assert this taken at face value, and it is only the interpretation influenced by the broad factors described above that modify those judgments.

Religious communities and teachings can be great sources of educating people about morality and opening the door to those questions. When people talk about these issues in a church, for example, they learn much more from each other than can be gleaned from old manuscripts which are vague and open to interpretation.

In summary, I don’t feel that being religious has an impact on morality except for an indirect community resource that can be obtained by being part of a religious community. An atheistic group which provided intellectual presentations and discussion on these topics serves just as well.