There’s a lot of talk these days about ethics, morals, moral foundations and immorality.
It’s good that we talk about such things. It’s good, too, when we listen.
Not everyone has the same take on moral issues. Anyone who has spoken to me would not be surprised at this, since I’m not infrequently at odds with the moral convictions of others.
There’s a simple explanation for that…
…I’m nearly bereft of any moral foundation.
At least, that would seem to be the opinion of many (not all) of the people to whom I’ve spoken. And I’m not the only one.
Today’s ruling [that jurors cannot hold Bible study during jury deliberation in order to discern G-d’s will for the verdict] further confirms that the judicial branch of our government is nearly bereft of any moral foundation. — “Death sentence by jury that discussed Bible thrown out” (March 29, 2005) CNN.
I have no doubt that disagreements over moral issues have been going on longer than Homo sapiens sapiens has existed. Among some members of the species, the arguments may have become more sophisticated, but disagreement is not new; it would not surprise me to learn that even the Neanderthals engaged in (probably pre-verbal, based on their laryngeal make-up) disagreements over morality.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with this, either. Talking to someone who disagrees with my moral views often gives me food for thought. It’s at least one of the reasons — the other, admittedly, being so I can respond to “christians” with the only words that could have a chance of being heard when it’s my turn to share ideas — that I read the Christian Bible. (Of course, this just flat-out doesn’t work with neo-Pharisees; each of them is the only person in the world capable of truly understanding G-d’s Will.) Reading the Bible sometimes gives me an insight into morality that I might not come up with on my own.
On the other hand, I am surprised — you would be, too — at the number of times I find myself in agreement with what I read in the Christian Bible. In fact, I wish more people would read the damn thing instead of running off at the mouth “defending” what they’ve apparently not even read. If America were a Christian nation, you would not find me complaining!
I like what Daniel J. Webster, Director of Communications for the Episcopal Dioceses of Utah, said:
As for calling this a Christian nation, that puzzles me. If this country were a Christian nation its citizens and government would be working tirelessly to make sure no one went to bed hungry tonight and that everyone would have a home. Universal health care would be a reality and not just a political debate. The 43 million people without health insurance would have basic medical care. — Daniel J. Webster, “A Christian Nation?” (undated; last visited March 30, 2005) A Globe of Witnesses.
But then he also points out (accurately) that “Founding Father” James Madison argued “that not only should there be freedom of religion in the commonwealth, there should also be freedom from religion,” so who’s going to listen to him?
In all seriousness, though, one point to note here is that even Christians don’t agree on the answers to all moral questions. The Catholics have one view; Baptists another. And that doesn’t even count the groups that “traditional” Christian religions say are “cults,” like the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Christian Scientists (by which I mean followers of the Church of Scientology, not the bozos at the Creation Research Institute). For that matter, some Catholics disagree with other Catholics; Mormons disagree with Mormons…. And it virtually goes without saying that Baptists seldom get along with other Baptists. (Some ironically-named “Freewill” Baptists won’t even visit any Freewill Baptist Church other than their own!)
You’d think in an environment like that, modern “christians,” like their forebears living in the late 18th Century United States of America, would endorse freedom from governmental interference with personal moral decisions instead of fighting to establish theocracy.
And if that weren’t enough, you’d think that they’d grab a Bible and read a bit about G-d’s feelings regarding freedom of choice. Heck, even one of the most obnoxious religious individuals who ever walked the face of the earth — the “apostle” Paul (formerly Saul of Tarsus) — favored it. “I preferred to do nothing without your consent in order that your goodness might not be by compulsion but of your own free will.” (Philemon 1:14 (Revised Standard Version)(emphasis added).)
So why is it that even the conservative Republican representative Christopher Shays of Connecticut was forced to admit, “The Republican Party of Lincoln has become a party of theocracy”? (Adam Nagourney, “G.O.P. Right Is Splintered on Schiavo Intervention” (March 23, 2005) The New York Times.)
The United States of America is a pluralistic nation. Even if it were not made up of people from different cultures and religions, not everyone would make the same decisions regarding morality. Our moral foundations have to be broad enough and abstract enough not just to account for this, but to allow and encourage it. Dialogue is good. Not only does it open your mind to ideas you might not think about otherwise, but if you are right and so many of us heathen could benefit from your wisdom, it opens our minds to ideas we might not think about otherwise.
And then, when we’ve come around to your way of thinking, our goodness might not be by compulsion but of our own free will.
Think about it. And then let’s talk.
8 responses so far ↓
1 newswriter // Mar 30, 2005 at 8:03 am
The News Writer thinks there is a huge difference between “morality” and “dogma” and that often the religious confuse the two.
The News Writer also thinks that morality is a personal decision and should not be legislated.
Crimes are not automatically related to morality and should fall under laws. Murder, for example, is immoral by most people’s consideration. But it is not illegal because it is immoral. It is illegal because it is an act of one person depriving another of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That it is immoral for most of us is irrelevant.
Removing Terri Schiavo’s feeding tube is not murder. Keeping her on life support indefinitely is dogma for some religions. It is not murder, however, because, while it does deprives her of life, she is already deprived of liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It fails to be immoral to her legally appointed guardian because he is following her wishes.
Homosexuality is not a crime because it affects no one but the consenting adults who practice it. For some people, their religious dogma tells them that homosexuality is immoral. No one denies them the right to believe that. They should not, however, have the right to determine whether other people must abide by their religious dogma.
Pedophilia is a crime, and by nearly every account, immoral. But the News Writer is concerned about the dogma involved here, vis a vis the Roman Catholic church’s hiding and protecting of their clergy who engage in the practice.
And yes, the News Writer does find it odd that these so-called Christians would be advocating that other be forced to toe their party line, when in fact this country was founded in part on the basis of religious freedom.
2 Rick Horowitz // Mar 30, 2005 at 8:09 am
What is it about this, exactly, that makes it “not illegal because it is immoral”?
The legal system does exist in furtherance of morality. The thing is that it exists — or, more accurately, it should exist — for the furtherance of moral decisions that are so basic as to seem “self-evident.” And that essentially means “evident to not just some specific group of humans, but nearly all humans.”
Based on what the examples you used, religious people aren’t the only ones who get confused about the difference between dogma and morality. 😉
3 newswriter // Mar 30, 2005 at 10:16 am
Alas, the News Writer is not an attorney, and does occassionally get in way over her head, particularly where matters of morality and religion and spirituality and legality and dogma are concerned, largely because she just doesn’t see the world like most people appear to.
The News Writer sees things that are “so basic as to be self-evident” as something other than morality, although perhaps she shouldn’t because your definition of “evident to not just some specific group of humans, but nearly all humans” almost fits the bill — except it doesn’t. We go back to, say, homosexuality. A majority of people likely still consider homosexuality immoral, and in some places “nearly all.” Then of course there’s the matter of changing mores, which does happen as civilization grows and evolves. Or doesn’t, if evolution doesn’t exist.
The News Writer remains confused, as she has been all day today. Perhaps she should not be posting or doing things that require thinking beyond what’s right in front of her. Aieeee.
(I think it all started when I read three Circuit Court rulings from the Schiavo case. Ugh).
4 Rick Horowitz // Mar 30, 2005 at 10:28 am
Newswriter has, indeed, been confused all day. 😉
Perhaps in countries to which you’ve paid attention.
When the children of the Renaissance began writing constitutions and pontificating (pardon the expression) on human rights in the 18th Century, they were usually careful to try to get to the “bedrock” notions that seemed to be the case even in cultures other than their own. They were also careful to stick to “core principles.”
So, for example, the fact that in their cultures, most people did not eat bugs and found the eating of bugs to be even repulsive was not enough to get a mention in the Constitution or in any of the arguments surrounding it. It just wasn’t a “core principle.” Likely as not, for them, “homosexuality” fell into that category, also. It’s not that it didn’t exist when they were writing; it just didn’t seem critical enough to get their attention.
Legal questions are almost always also moral questions. It just doesn’t as often work the other way around; moral questions are not almost always legal questions.
“Murder” is a moral term and a legal term. “Removing a feeding tube” is primarily a moral issue that becomes a legal issue only when the parties involved in the moral issue reach such a state of disagreement and have no other recourse so that they have to turn to a court to adjudicate the matter.
5 Bob // Mar 30, 2005 at 11:53 am
The NewsWriter appears to be a well informed and compassionate person. However, there is a distinction that needs to be made here.
One of the primary principals of Christian dogma is mercy. In my opinion, a great majority of Christians (please notice the capital ‘C’ versus the small ‘c’ reserved for token ‘believers’) would allow a person with no hope of recovery to quietly die with dignity. Let me explain.
Most mainstream Christian denominations respect Healthcare Directives made by the patient and the family. An intelligent and informed decision will be considered as ‘moral’ and ‘ethical’ regardless of dogma.
The ‘slippery slope’ phrase that so many law students are prone to use comes into play with the use of ‘heroics’. These are machines and medicines that take the function of body for a temporary period (a ventilator for example). When heroics are introduced, the question is always asked whether they can be removed.
There literally have been hundreds of thousands of instances where a ventilator has been turned off with consent of the family. In this case, the church blesses both the dying and the family. There is no particular legal measurement such as brain activity required by the church. When it’s obvious life cannot continue without heroics and that the body is too damaged to continue then it’s considered ‘moral’. The buzz word that’s not used much in the press is ‘mercy’. Christian dogma has plenty of it.
(And besides, if you do believe in Christianity, the soul goes to a better place. Freeing the soul to return to the Father is just basic doctrine.)
My frustration is that the press (and public imagination) makes decisions about ‘Christians’ based on circumstances that are often best described as train wrecks.
How often does a husband fight the parents in court over a life? How often do the parents continue to file suit after suit and continue the press conferences and sound bites? How often will video of the patient (from two years ago) be shown on TV, as if that will clarify anyone’s decision?
The position of almost all major religions in the world is to give dignity to the dying. There are times where the level of dignity shown at a funeral is higher than shown while the person was alive. I have personally seen this.
This horrible situation is not a demonstration of Christian morals, ethics or dogma. It’s also not a demonstration of legislative branches intruding into personal lives. It’s a media freak show where the usual talking heads get airtime (pick a Fox show) and the usual attention deficit types (Jesse Jackson) get their soundbite.
Quite frankly, the energy that this situation uses to self perpetuate with is generated by the family itself. It’s difficult to provide death with dignity when you’re giving interviews.
6 Bob // Mar 30, 2005 at 3:44 pm
I’m sorry, I do not intend to pick on NewsWriter but her comment just resonated through my head. I just have to respond because of what I believe to be errors of perception on most everyone’s part, not just hers.
IF the consenting adults kept it private then I would respect that claim but the mass marketing and media machines are all over this.
Have you seen TV lately?
Its hip (and profitable) to create shows about gay people right now. In fact, our entire culture is obsessive about sex. We see sex where it doesn’t even belong. (Can a car be sold today without the female window dressing? Why aren’t women more offended?).
Gay sex is trendy, breaking all the rules and fascinating to our culture. It’s no longer two people in privacy, it’s two (or more) people with 8% body fat and perfect teeth on network television in prime time showing the world it’s ok to be gay.
But what about the young ones, the ones in their formative years about things sexual? Does Will & Grace (one of my favorites by the way) have to be broadcast at 8 PM? I don’t have children but I am starting to empathize with friends who do when they complain about having to guard what their children watch.
The ‘costume malfunction’ of the Super Bowl is a case in point. How can a parent who truly loves their child protect their child when that child is bombarded by television shows, television commercials, billboards, sporting events & magazine advertising about sex? Even Sports Illustrated is worthy of worry. Have you seen their swimsuit cover? It resembles a Playboy cover, not a sports mag.
Flipping through cable TV is even more dangerous. ‘Queer as Folk’ for the boys and ‘The L Word’ for the girls not to mention most movies on cable contain a sex scene or strong sexual innuendo.
Would it be “self-evident” that the next generation we welcome into our country and into our culture needs a fighting shot to come out without being shaped by aggressive sexual mass marketing?
Perhaps, if we were to look at BOTH sides of the situation, we could imagine the challenge of raising children today? Many people who “fear” culture, as demonstrated by many Fundamentalist denominations, are just trying to protect their children (and sometimes themselves) from a pervasive culture based on sexuality. Just drive by a junior high school when school lets out and see what the girls are wearing. These impressionable minds are shaped by music marketing, movie marketing, technology marketing and clothing marketing.
Or is it just a coincidence that EVERY female pop singer looks good in tight jeans and a belly shirt?
And is it so hard to see how this can fear be manipulated for political gain? Add that to a sitting president impeached for sexual relations with an intern and hello Red State.
So to get back to NewsWriter?s comment. No, in my opinion homosexuality should not be illegal, however, this culture needs to step back and allow children a more graceful entrance into the Pandora?s Box of sexuality than what it is today (and where?s its heading).
Consider that if ?Chick Singer X? wears a thong outside her pants that thousands of junior high school girls would imitate that. Now imagine the imitation that happens when topics as life shaping as sexuality are ?dumbed? down and mass marketed. Can you see the effect on so many young lives not ready to make that decision?
And before some people rally round the ?sexual freedom? flag, at least TRY to imagine raising a child amidst this culture. These are not bad people, chances are they were once just like you, it?s now their responsibility is to bring up a decent and well adjusted human being. Not a job for the weak.
Here again, the headline shapes public opinion. The headline that is written to sell copy, not tell the whole story. Talking heads spout their ?opinions? not taking the whole story into account.
There is no one in the Roman Catholic church who will condone this behavior (no dogma as you put it).
What happened was the RC?s where trying to avoid corporate embarrassment. It didn?t turn out that way, did it? Some might even say God created the justice that the church could not bring to itself. Mmmm?too much of a stretch for some but I digress.
But going back to the Dignified Death issue (or most any issue out there today), look at the big picture. If the RC church was a corporation, it would employ hundreds of thousands of people. In this culture (especially in this culture) is it possible that all those people are well adjusted and mentally healthy? Nope.
But the percentage of sexual predators is small compared to the size of the RC organization, perhaps the same proportion as in western society. The entire organization is embarrassed by those involved and the subsequent cover up but the entire organization cannot be judged by the acts of a small minority. I am not even a Roman Catholic but I have witnessed good men silently serving others in that church over the course of decades. They don?t seek attention for doing what they love and they certainly wouldn?t be considered newsworthy.
It?s not newsworthy to feed the poor (who don?t vote) or to comfort the dying (another poor demographic to market to). It?s not newsworthy to bring peace and stability to families on the cusp of self destruction ( who have no money to spend).
This is certainly not worth being called news or even our attention. But it is REALITY.
Shaping an opinion on the RC while these headlines blaze is natural.
Publishing that opinion while not stating the whole story is irresponsible at best.
7 newswriter // Apr 1, 2005 at 6:33 am
The News Writer is appreciative of all the comments, but unfortunately is in a rush at the moment and cannot respond to all … but must say bob is right that children need a more graceful entrance into the “pandora’s box of sexuality” … although she cautions that one must be mindful of the definitions of “sexuality” — there are those who say that two gay men holding hands is too much, but the News Writer disagrees with that assessment. Children should be allowed to know that two men or two women can love one another the way that a man and a woman can, on whatever level the child is able to understand at that moment. They don’t have to be told a thing about sex until their ready — although as bob pointed out, it’s getting a little silly out there.
also, the News Writer apologizes for making a over-general comment about the RC church, however, in her defense, she points out that it is somewhat more than a corporation’s employees stepping over the bounds of rightness but rather is an abuse of the very nature of the “job.”
also, maybe you’re all right and moral and legal come together more often than the News Writer wants to see. but then, she never said she made sense all the time.
8 Get Back In The Damn Closet! // Sep 17, 2008 at 8:19 am
[…] a discussion following my article “Talking About Morality,” Bob and the Newswriter got into a back-and-forth about “dogma” and […]
Leave a Comment