D. James Kennedy had a good sermon on The New Tolerance this past week, and I really like his take on the virtue of "tolerance." He said that in a climate of moral relevancy, it is stated that one moral system or religion is as valid as any other, so all must be accorded respect AND must be accepted as equally valid.
Or course, this is preposterous, since some moral systems and religions are harmful in their inaccuracy when compared to reality. But Kennedy went on to say that when a culture progressively forsakes the objectively valuable virtues such as chastity, honesty, industry, thrift, etc., the last "virtue" that is demanded in such a declining culture is "tolerance." Since people don’t want to be faced with the reality and results of their lack of these other virtues (i.e. they are promiscuous, dishonest, lazy, wasteful, etc.), they demand that you stop calling them on these sins – they demand that you "tolerate" them, and if you don’t, YOU lack virtue.
But as I like to say, tolerance in personal relationships is often a virtue, but tolerance of wickedness in society is cowardice.
AND, this post is about how tolerance has become, rather than mere respectful disagreement, a demand that we consider all moral systems as equally valid or invalid.
Except, it was Christians who advocated eugenics in the U.S., and Christians who propounded euthanasia in Europe.
D. J. Kennedy says asking for tolerance is a last refuge — and if he insists on seeking acceptance for untruths as truths, he's right. Such moral relevance is immoral, and we shouldn't take falsehoods from Kennedy any more than we would take them from anyone else. There are ancient systems of morality based on a concept of no gods, including one that came up with a rule of "do unto others as one would have others do unto you." Moral results do not require religion, and it's folly to argue that it might be so.
If Kennedy ever disavows his collections of falsehoods on the founding of the nation and on science, we would all be better off. Tolerance of such falsehoods in public policy discussion is still wrong.
—–Either we can have a 21st-century conversation about morality and human happiness—availing ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse—or we can confine ourselves to an Iron Age conversation as it is preserved in our holy books.—–
—–There are ancient systems of morality based on a concept of no gods, including one that came up with a rule of “do unto others as one would have others do unto you.” —–
Where can I read about these moralistic systems without gods?
And the scientific insights (into human happiness and morality?)? Where can I read those?
Things preserved in our holy book are not relevant today? Thou shalt not steal seems like a valid moral to me… Even in our enlightened times.
People havent changed much in 2000 years. If they have, how have they?
Where can I read about these moralistic systems without gods?
There are many books about philosophy available where you can learn about ethics and morality.
And the scientific insights (into human happiness and morality?)? Where can I read those?
What part of the Sam Harris piece does your question refer to?
Things preserved in our holy book are not relevant today? Thou shalt not steal seems like a valid moral to me… Even in our enlightened times.
“Thou shall not steal” seems like a valid moral to me as well. “If a man discovers that his bride is not a virgin on their wedding night, he must stone her to death on her father’s doorstep (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21)” does not seem relevant today. A child could have told you this.
People haven’t changed much in 2000 years. If they have, how have they?
People have not changed much in 2000 years. This is true. People’s morality has changed a lot in 2000 years. For example, it is no longer moral to stone your bride on her father’s doorstep if you discover she is not a virgin on your wedding night.
Have you understood and agreed with anything Sam Harris said about religion at all; or have you dismissed everything he says as automatically invalid?
The Deuteronomy and other "bible difficulties" do have answers (though you probably won't find them sufficient). http://www.carm.org/bible_difficulties.htm
Seeker, this is EXACTLY my point. Morality has changed to reflect today's society.
Ok, so what if i agree with you? How does that make my other positions invalid?
Ok, so what if i agree with you? How does that make my other positions invalid?
This point was for Lawanda’s benefit. I’ll respond to your post below.
Well, many of our founders would disagree with you:
I don’t see a conflict between the Sam Harris and John Adam’s quotes. Don’t you agree that morality and religion are separate? For example, we both believe killing is wrong. Do you believe killing is wrong only because the bible says so or was your conclusion based on something else? I myself arrived at the conclusion that “killing is wrong” by reason and experience. I did not need the religion and scripture to tell me what I already know.
Second, while we might, based on ethics, have some foundation for writing just laws, we would and o also easily justify such evil practices as unsrestricted infanticide/abortion, euthanasia, ane eugenics.
I’ve lost you.
Sam Harris, while he has some decent arguments, is a bit of a crank, imo.
In your estimation, all non-Christians are “cranks” in one respect or another. There is nothing irrational about Harris’ arguments.
I mostly agree with this evaluation, except that it is overly simplistic. There is a problem when we define “happiness” and “suffering.” If I say I am happy getting high all day, should anyone question my morality if “no one besides me is getting hurt?” Never mind tha taxpayers will have to pay for my disease care.
I would put marijuana use in the same category as alcohol. I would say neither is “moral” and neither is harmless.
And regarding his argument that gay marriage doesn’t hurt anyone, it may hurt children and society. You can’t just argue that you don’t believe that. You have to look at studies that back up that claim. This is why I continue to urge government to keep the official definition of marriage as man and woman. If gays want to marry, they can, but they can’t get rights that they don’t qualify for.
How does gay marriage hurt children and society? gay couples can also adopt “unwanted” children. That’s a social benefit right? As far as not qualifying for marriage rights, your rational seems to place you squarely in this camp.
Also, the arguments about the evils of religion with respect to AIDS and condoms, while a justifiable criticism of those who approach such actions, says nothing of the culpability of secularists in failing to promote chastity, and promoting infanticide via abortion. And this type of religious mistake may be common, but in and of itself does not mean that religion is bad, only that this is a potential weakness.
I agree with you that all aspects of Christianity are not bad. There are some very nice pieces of Christianity like “The Sermon on the Mount” which I agree with. People like FCL for example, are examples of “true Christians.” Christian Nationalists though are twisting Christianity into an “ugly” religion that is intolerant, superstitious and authoritarian. In Shirley Jackson’s “The Lottery” it’s easy to think of the towns people as having the same attitude as Christian Nationalists while the other secular towns have given up the tradition of stoning people to death. The inflexibility of fundamentalist Christianity and Islam is what puts them in direct conflict with the 21st century. Sam Harris and Wafa Sultan contend, it’s not a culture war we have, it’s a war between an iron age mentality and the 21st century. This applies to the twin evils of Evangelical and Islamic fundamentalism. Though they recognize ignorance in each other, they don’t recognize it within themselves. Secularists see the ignorance of both religions clearly!
Regarding chastity, I’m sure you and Aaron have Chastity belts on your daughters. As far as “promoting infanticide” goes, did I tell you that all liberals love to bath in the blood of infants? It’s how we “promote infanticide.”
Seeker,
I tolerate your existence, and your disgusting beliefs, and I would never try to change the laws so that your ability to be an ass wasn't protected. Is my tolerance cowardice?
Actually, you are practicing tolerance in the traditional sense if you disagree, unlike the "new tolerance" Kennedy is describing. If you were practicing the "new tolerance" you would also agree to let me teach my views on homosexuality in the classrooms of America – in fact, you would make it mandatory.
Lawanda, that you agree with me that the punishment no longer fits the moral, in this case stoning some poor girl to death for not being a virgin, is just further proof some of the passages in the bible are just not relevant today.
You yourself compared Deuteronomy 22:13-21 to "dumb laws": Laws that are "wacked out for those crazy Israelites (Jews)."
…you would perhaps see a christian's reasons for not having to worry about the old "laws"
What are "a Christian's reasons for not having to worry about [God's] old laws?"
[Chastity] applies today (perhaps a bit different context, as in this [deliberately exposing 17 women to the AIDS virus] kind of thing.)
So, was he convicted for attempted murder or lack of chastity? If you think he was sentenced to 177 years in prison because he lacked chastity well I have a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you are interested.
If more people worried about their chastity, it is a fact there would be less STD. Think about when chastity was a big deal. Was there an AIDs epidemic?
He not only infected those 17 women, but those 17 women in turn exposed 170 other people. That is 10 people on average each. I once read a chart on the ratios of having sex with more than one person…I cant remember the numbers, but they were surprising to me, as I had never thought about it before, personally. You, I am sure, can figure out the math – just based on this example – of how many people expose themselves to AIDs because of our "tolerant" morals.
Is that a hard sell? To me, it seems like it is as obvious as the nose on your face that STDs are a BIG problem. (A fact that is readily admitted. However, the solution from most people being … give everyone more condoms. Yea, that's working well.)
But – Hello! Diseases that are transmitted sexually are a moral problem. Sex is just something people do whenever they want, with whomever they want anymore; thanks to the moral of "tolerance" falsely so called, imo. This value of having sex without regard to chastity should be compared to gluttony, if you think about it. And neither is good for your health.
Will you read Hebrews? I can't exactly post the whole thing, as it is long. But here are a couple examples:
Hebrews 9:8-15
Hebrews 10:1
Did I do something to make my whole post italicize? If so I apologise.
Wow, weird italics!
Again, was that guy convicted for attempted murder or for lacking chastity?
What are "a Christian's reasons for not having to worry about [God's] old laws?" You know about this than I do so I'm asking you.
(I tried to close the italics… I guess we'll see if it works.)
That guy was convicted of attempted murder. His crime was attmpted murder, his weapon sex. If he had any moral about his chastity (or if more of his women friends had morals concerning their chastity), he would have lacked the weapon.
Hebrews talks about our savior Jesus in the first few chapters, and talks about how the old law was a shadow of things to come. A "physical" figure with
—meats and drinks, and divers (various) washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.—
Which when Christ came he mediated a "spiritual" law.
—By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh; —
oops, I didnt mean to click the post button.
I wanted to do this verse too:
Galatians 6:1
You have lost me. What does a guy using AIDS as a weapon have to do with stoning your bride on her father's doorstep? The guy tried to kill a lot of people. Horrible! He deserves 177 years in jail. A girl has sex before she gets married. She shouldn't be stoned to death. Should she?
…the old law was a shadow of things to come.
Well, there you go. People's sense of morality changes over time and with culture.
The morals are the same in the old testament and the new. Though the laws are of a different nature. Just like my morals closely resemble early christians even though I live under a fairly different set of laws.
The whole reason for my bringing up that person was the point of the moral. The moral the bride lacked who could have been stoned on her father's doorstep (although how many men did that really? I'd have to say few.) was chastity. The man who attempts to murder with sex obviously lacks chastity as well as respect for human life.
My point was really how out of hand the "morals of today" are when it gets down to a man or woman who attempts to murder people with sex. And my other point was that chastity is a moral people lack today. And one moral that would really solve many problems concerning STD's and unwanted pregnancy in young people, if it were taught to more people.
:)
…attempts to murder people with sex.
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say attempted murder with AIDS? I like to think I am good in bed, but EVEN I (make sure to note joking tone) would have trouble physically harming a woman with just sex :)
The morals are the same in the old testament and the new.
But obviously, chastity the moral is not deemed to be as important in the new testament because the punishment is not nearly as severe as in the old. What is the punishment for being unchaste in the new testament? Is there even a punishment for it anymore? Shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?
Well he did not attempt to give them AIDS with infected needles. He used sex in his attempt at murder.
The punishment for unrepented of sins in the NT is eternal…All unrepented of sins. It is pretty harsh as you like to point out. (And I know you dont believe it either.)
And the value of chastity is one of the things people argue most about from the NT. Because it is one of the things most people do not want to hear, and obviously that is christians included. They would rather live like there is no tomorrow and treat their body as their own personal toy. Thus the unpopular view of being chaste – or treating your body like it is important to you.
Well he did not attempt to give them AIDS with infected needles.
AIDS was the lethal weapon he used not sex, not needles.
He used sex in his attempt at murder.
He also used air in his attempt at murder when he breathed. Do you also blame air? Of course not.
The punishment for unrepented of sins in the NT is eternal…All unrepented of sins.
So, if punishment for the unchaste is not death by stoning in the NT, what is it? Is there any law for it like in the OT?
Eternal hell fire. The thing about the NT, you don't see them making laws to govern the urges we as humans have, those which are not always the best for other humans. You see them saying over and over – love your brother, love your enemy, help those who are weak, encourage the failing.
If you took away his air, he would not be alive to commit the crime, true.
But he did use sex to commit the crime. He used his infected semen to infect other people. On purpose.
Have you ever played Clue? It was: this dude, in the bedroom, with his semen. My best guess anyway.
;)
But he did use sex to commit the crime. He used his infected semen to infect other people. On purpose.
Following your logic… He breathed air, to have sex, to use his semen to infect other people, on purpose. Correct? So… we must blame air if we also blame sex. Or, we blame just the murderer himself and not air, needles, AIDS, or sex and lack of chastity. The latter makes sense the former does not. Why blame sex itself when that has as much to do with his killing someone as air?
The thing about the NT, you don't see them making laws to govern the urges we as humans have…
So, in the NT there is no law pertaining to chastity. Jesus must have figured out in the NT that as long as sex is between consenting adults, it's no one else's business.
You men, you just can't concede a point can you? ;)
Ok, that wasnt simple enough for you.
If this man hadnt had sex with any of these women and HAD used a gun instead, would you be ok with saying he used the bullet from the gun to injure the women, in other words, as his weapon?
So instead of having sex, inserting his penis, and releasing semen; he would have aimed a gun, pulled the trigger, and released a bullet. Same thing.
And you say the one type of murderous weapon should be controlled. (gun control) But you have an apparent problem with controlling the means of one of the biggest killers of all time – AIDs a SEXually transmitted disease.
You obviously do not think that penis (or vagina) control is needed. Even though this was consentual sex between adults, the sex was the vehicle for the attempted murder, just as a gun is when used for the same purpose.
And so your whole "consensual sex" is good for everyone theory got a little kink. Because well, it wasnt in that case, was it. Just like guns are good for shooting animals to eat, but they arent good for shooting people to murder them.
What about drunk drivers? That is another way people kill other people. Only they do not get drunk with the intent to drive off and kill someone. But does that make them less responsible for the murders they commit?
But you see, the rest of the sad scenario is slightly similar to drunk drivers because while the man used his AIDS-infected semen on purpose to infect and rid the world of these women; these women in their turn, yet without the intent to do any harm or knowledge that they were, infected others as well.
Who then infected others, and so on and so forth. All this without intent, but indeed because they had no regard nor responsibility for their sexual behavior (chastity) they still spread the disease which they contracted from a man who had no respect for life AND no chastity.
But you appear to think that endorsement of chastity is on the same plane as ignorance and prejudice and an encroachment on a human right.
Which I do endorse chastity, because it IS the most effective way to avoid getting AIDS or other std's, you have to admit. (But I am sure you wouldnt admit this, would you?)
The new testament on chastity:
Romans 13:8-10
Ephesians 5:5
Matthew 15:18-20
James 1:27
Philippians 4:8
I am telling you, if more people were taught this moral the AIDS epidemic would not be as wide spread. Nor would pedophelia, nor the problem of unwanted pregancy. But you disagree. ?
And you say the one type of murderous weapon should be controlled. (gun control) But you have an apparent problem with controlling the means of one of the biggest killers of all time – AIDs a SEXually transmitted disease.
I don't have any problem with trying to control AIDS and find a cure for it. You do, though you can't see it, more on that later…
You obviously do not think that penis (or vagina) control is needed.
Of course not. It would be silly to legislate laws regulating "penis (or vagina)" as "weapons." Guns are pieces of machinery made in factories, and they can be controlled with laws. Hand guns and assault rifles have one purpose, to snuff out lives. There is a big difference between guns and genitals.
And so your whole "consensual sex" is good for everyone theory got a little kink. Because well, it wasnt in that case, was it.
Huh? You mean the murder case? Don't you see a difference between attempted murder and consensual sex? Don't you see a difference between murdering someone with a gun and hunting? Don't you see a difference between drinking a beer, and drunk driving? I do. It's called individual responsibility and it makes children into adults.
But you appear to think that endorsement of chastity (for adults) is on the same plane as ignorance and prejudice and an encroachment on a human right.
Precisely! And for the reasons I stated above.
Which I do endorse chastity, because it IS the most effective way to avoid getting AIDS or other std's, you have to admit. (But I am sure you wouldnt admit this, would you?)
Why would I espouse something that is completely untrue? Want proof?
I am telling you, if more people were taught this moral the AIDS epidemic would not be as wide spread. Nor would pedophelia, nor the problem of unwanted pregancy. But you disagree. ?
Very much so. See above. The fact is, the abject ignorance of Christians about chastity is killing 100,000's of people. Your ignorance is lethal, especially when you make ignorance the law. All you need to do is look at Uganda for an example. How many more people need to die before fundamentalist Christians recognize that their policies destroy innocent life?
Ok, that wasnt simple enough for you.
Well, you are quite the cunning linguist so simplicity is appreciated.
See herein is the difference between me and most people. I think PARENTS are the ones who should teach their children about how to be responsible for their bodies. Not President Bush, or the Congress, or any lawmaker in the world. Although they should certainly offer parents help, imo.
Obviously the lawmakers are not effective parents.
Let us look at a fact about STDs (which you ignore) this is from wikipedia (which site I love! hehe):
"As early as 1996, WHO estimated that more than 1 million people were being infected daily. About 60% of these infections occur in young people <25 years of age, and 30% of this age group is <20 years. Between the ages of 14 and 19, STDs occur more frequently in girls than boys by a ratio of nearly 2:1; this equalizes by age 20."
So you see? This problem is not only with consenting adults. Not even with mostly consenting adults. Is it?
This is a HUGE problem with YOUNG people. Fourteen year old girls???? That is awful.
And you know what would help? If a fourteen year old girl's mother and her father, told her that she has a responsibility to keep her body safe (whether they are a christian or not). Not when she was fourteen. When she was 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and still when she was fourteen and always.
And another fact ignored by people who insist that sex should continue to be had like it is going out of style, is that widespread STD did NOT HAPPEN until the sexual revolution.
Did it?
That is only reasonable. Yet, it is ignored by people who call themselves reasonable! But, when most people in this country taught their children to be chaste (since that is our moral for this argument ;) ) there was no widespread STD problem.
And another quote from wikipedia, although I suppose it could be considered biased:
Management
The most effective way to prevent sexual transmission of STIs is to avoid sexual intercourse with an infected partner. Ideally, both new partners should get tested for STIs before initiating sexual intercourse. If a person chooses to have sexual intercourse with a partner whose infection status is unknown or who is infected with HIV or another STI, a new condom should be used for each act of intercourse. Condom use is not completely protective against acquisition of STI because of the presence of pathogen outside the protected skin or condom breakage.
Emphasis mine, of course.
—The fact is, the abject ignorance of Christians about chastity is killing 100,000's of people. Your ignorance is lethal, especially when you make ignorance the law.—
And it is DEFINITELY not chstity killing people. If they were chaste they would be a lot less likely to contract AIDS. Think about that. Really.
I would argue that it is people's abject ignorance about Sexually Transmitted Diseases that is lethal. Because of their obstinate MUST HAVE SEX with 16 people (or more! yikes) policy that most people have today is what is lethal!!
I do know what you are saying about the abstinance only "program"… But you cannot reasonable say that ABSTINANCE is lethal. Come on.
I am a firm believer that politicians need to get their heads out of their … well, you know, and REALIZE that the way to stop ANYTHING like this is to EDUCATE people to be GOOD PARENTS who for one thing, set a good example for their kids to follow, and then also are determined that their kids should be safe from STDs.
But I have no one to vote for. Alas, parenthood has been scoffed at as indoctrination, and ignored.
—Well, you are quite the cunning linguist so simplicity is appreciated.—
I am cunning?! Be careful, I may take that as a compliment, since I rarely get anything but ignorant around here ;)
Well, you are quite the cunning linguist so simplicity is appreciated. – I may take that as a compliment.
Lawanda, would you say that your education and world view are typical of "Bible Belt" America?
I would say my views on education and the world are not typical period. To "liberals" I am conservative, to "conservatives" I am liberal.
Go figure.
I still say I am not neutral, though!! I would actually consider myself more conservative, because I like that word better. :-p (I like to conserve things, what can I say…)
I think I know what you are getting at, though… in asking if I consider my views typical of the "Bible Belt"… Because you consider yourself "secular"…
But I firmly believe that there are what I call "followers" on both sides of the coin. And I am very FOR seperation of church and state for that reason.
It's just that it's hard for me to get used to Evangelical Christians being oblivious to the fact they kill 100,000s of people with lethally ignorant chastity only policies.
It is hard for me to get used to the fact that my kids have to grow up in a world where many of the problems come from people who think mainly about having sex.
Or probably more accurately – the problems come from people having so much sex without responsibility, which in my opinion stems from the fact that people think about sex way more than anything else.
You've killed enough of my braincells already. I should have stopped talking to you much earlier but I still had hope. It's gone now. Don't bother responding. This conversation is over.
Lawanda, I apologize to you. I'm sorry. I'm just getting a little frustrated that you don't recognize that preaching abstinence only is killing people. Your not directly to blame for those deaths, it's just that you don't realize that abstinence only does not work.
You know, I went back to your link, and I clicked the link about Uganda in her article.
AIDS is a very huge problem in Uganda, and their approach is paying off, not to mention the fear is helping. Their grassroots (I read that family-type) approach is exactly what I would have used. Casual sex</B is what spreads AIDS at such alarming rates. Cut down on it, and there will be progress. Uganda is a very good example of that.
I very much am appalled that there is a shortage of condoms. From what I read, the shortage of condoms was due in part to a bad shipment. But I also read that some of the US contractors (that was the word used) were telling people to leave out the part of preventing AIDS about condoms.
And I, like you, disagree with that. I think chastity includes using condoms to Protect your body, because, even if you abstain until you get married, how do you know your husband did? Or will.
But I am all for HIV testing before you have sex with anyone!! Too bad it is hard to do when you are "in the moment"…where most casual sex occurs.
What happened to my post?! That should have read something liek – Casual sex is the cause for AIDS spreading at such an alarming rate.
I think I had smething else there too. O bother.