in the six years I spent in the seminary most of the time was spent studying morality. We studied morality like lawyers study law; what was good what was bad what was right what was wrong. We knew what the rules were, we knew how to tell that they had been broken we knew what was good and what was bad. Obviously the morality had a Catholic bent, but we also examined the morality from the point of view of an agnostic, from the point of view of an atheist, your morals without Christian constructs added. For instance to any moral person, a Christian or atheist, killing somebody (murder) is wrong. To a Catholic there are things that are considered wrong that agnostics or other religions wouldn’t consider wrong. To a Catholic masturbation is a sin to an atheist it is a recreational activity. So morality is subjective within the human subset. Our instructors made quite an issue of developing our understanding of theological and secular morality.
In secular morality, there are such things as “Victimless” activities; not so much in theological morality. A pair of adults, from a secular point of view, can engage in a commercial transaction that involves the exchange of cash or other fungible commodity for sexual relations. The law may frown on it, but since it takes place between consenting adults, aware of their individual risks, it is perfectly acceptible from a secular standpoint. From a theological standpoint, the individuals commit a sin against themselves, against others, and against the Creator. If you’re religious, you understand this, and if you’re not, I doubt you care. But we were made to understand it, and understand what the difference was, because that was the entire point of our education. Sure, we got calculus and eng lit and all that other stuff, but we were being trained to think critcally about the individual risks of human activity as it related not only to our faith but to the chosen mores of others. In this way each of us, from the very brightest to the very dumbest, from the nicest to the biggest dick, all of the people I graduated with are- like myself- a law unto theirself. That is the education my parents paid for, and it was cheap at twice the price, even in those valuable mid 70’s dollars.
When it is at it’s very best, the Law is about morality, and while the Law’s morality must by definition be secular, it must protect the theological morality of those it rules. Making prostitution or drugs or alcohol or gambling illegal to suit the morality of a segment of the population denies the ability of a different segment of the population to engage in behavior they do not consider immoral. This is a quandary, and always will be- one to which there are no perfect answers, in a world people with humans that have non-monolithic beliefs.
I have been accused of attempting to overlay my specific theological mores onto several subjects- the issue of gay marriage being the one most are most vocal about. Those people are either blissfully and deliberately ignorant of who the hell I am, or morons, or both. My issues with gay marriage are purely secular, they relate specifically to the reason for the entire push for gay marriage, which is, and this is a fact and not my opinion, a tool to be used to damage people’s ability to live and worship as they please. You know this to be true, or you are an idiot. There is no third choice. If you think this is something I “Believe” it reinforces “idiot”. And no, protecting religious people’s freedom does not make this a religious issue, it remains a secular issue. I feel exactly the same about people being abused or oppressed because they like guns or pitbulls or ding-dongs or pall malls. if you want to use the law as a tool to prevent people from smoking or from eating ding dongs or owning pitbulls because you don’t like them, you’re the asshole. And no, you cannot begin to argue that Christians are trying to keep Marriage away from gays, because if you even so much as think that, you should put a gun in your mouth; you’re too stupid to live. The substance of a marriage is the commitment you make; it is not the cerimony, it is not the law, it is not the religious views you hold, it does definitly not rely on other people’s approval. As you cannot legislate morality, as you cannot dictate what anyone considers immoral, you cannot force people to confer their approval on your actions. Stop it.
Sorry to keep going off on this, folks. I keep getting bombarded by this nonsense everywhere I turn.
I have long believed, and gave up arguing almost as long ago, that you cannot legislate morality. In the process, I lost sight of the possibly more important idea that legislation must permit (or at least expressly allow for) variance in individual beliefs of what comprises morality. Thanks for reminding me.
We can leave for some other occasion the completely unrealistic limits on personal responsibility inherent in the concept of “killing somebody (murder) is wrong” (a concept I don’t necessarily disagree with, but would argue is far more complex than is commonly considered, as witness your assumptive conflation of killing with murder) (yes, I know this is entirely beside your actual point :)).
I put it that way to specifically single out murder. Killing somebody (war, execution, self defense) is not always wrong
I do agree with what you said. I would love to rebut the way you said it as imprecise. We could expend lots of energy on that, like we normally do, but the root point is that we still agree on the principles.
It’s imprecise because I only had so much time. Give me thirty years and I can explain in depth.
Don’t need or have the thirty years to spare. But, I’d gladly settle for thirty pages?
You don’t just make for good reading. You make for good thinking. And your efforts are highly appreciated.
Jim
Sunk New Dawn
Galveston, TX
well, as we have seen, to the left morality is in the eye of the beholder.
I’ve long believed that the answer to the issue of gay marriage is to separate the two aspects of what we call marriage,the legal and, for lack of a better word, spiritual. If two people wish to enter a legal contract together (and from a secular standpoint that’s all marriage is), they wish to have their property in common, and have the ability to make legal, medical or financial decisions for each other, fine, crank out a boilerplate contract, sign it in the presence of witnesses, and go do your thing. The question of which tab-A goes into which slot-B in the privacy of their own home is irrelevant. Further, if an organization wishes to define marriage and one man and one woman, or two people, or one man and as many women as he can afford to support, or six men, eleven women and a Jack Russel terrier then let them knock themselves out. Nobody gets asked to perform a ceremony they don’t want to, everyone gets all the legal protections which are the STATED purpose (as opposed to the REAL purpose you point out) of the activists.
But that makes too much sense I guess.
The thing that bugs me about the gay activists is how in-your-face they are about it. I presume that no one wishes to know the details of my sex life. I presume that specifically because I have no desire to know the details of anyone else’s sex life. Manners therefore dictate that I don’t go shouting “My wife and I got freaky last night!” into strangers faces on the subway. Manners should also dictate that people don’t grab me and tell me the mechanics by which they seek pleasure, but that seems to be lost on some people.
OK, I’ve said enough and probably pissed off a few people.
Hell, I’ve pissed off everyone, more or less.
The thing that bugs me about the gay activists is how in-your-face they are about it.
This, exactly.