Any Philosophical Defences of Homosexuality as Immoral?

[Tassman]

Tassman here you have no idea what you are talking about. First most of the founders were christian.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5097

Of those 55 Founding Fathers, we know what their sworn public confessions were. Twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholic, one is unknown, and only three were deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin.


Second, even our ideas of liberty had their roots in the writings of Christian thinkers like John Locke and Samuel Rutherford (you need to study Locke's influence on the founders and Rutherford's influence on Locke via his work Lex Rex) . Third, the laws on the state level (in the early 13 states) were biblically based. We had laws against working on the sabbath (which lasted in my state until the 60s). Laws against fornication, adultery, blasphmey, sodomy, etc... We even had tax supported state churches. But back to my point - the founding document of this nation was based on a religious principle - that our rights are God given. Whether that is a christian principle or not is not the point - it was religious. And if our rights do not come from God, where do they come from?

Try some study on the issue:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html

Yes I’m aware that Religious Right activists are attempting to rewrite history and claim that the USA, as a Christian nation, must give precedence to Christian principles. But, in fact, the USA was firmly established as a secular nation not a religion-based one.

Its Constitution is a secular document. It does not appeal to Christianity, or any supreme being. The U.S. government derives from people, not god, as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union........"

Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in a letter on January 1st, 1802 as a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison also wrote that "Strongly guarded…… is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." If this is not clear enough the Treaty of Tripoli specifically states “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion……”

By keeping religion separate from the state, atheists and religionists are entitled to maintain their worldview, without interference from the state. Thus, in the instance of granting full civil rights to homosexuals, the only valid objections are secular ones. Objections based on purely religious grounds are not acceptable in a secular state.

Really? Who's secular reasons? Yours? Stalin's, Mao's? Why can't secular laws restrict rights?

Stalin and Mao were totalitarian dictators motivated by a rigid ideology not much different in kind to the rigid ideologies of religious theocracies….as some want to see in the USA. The danger, in both instances, is the blanket imposition of an ideology on an entire populace, whether willing or not.

Secular laws in a secular democracy can only restrict individual rights if those rights can be shown to be detrimental to the welfare of the state, e.g. the ‘right’ of a psychopath to murder people.

In a secular nation such as the US, with its formalized separation of Church and State, laws cannot be legitimately based on religious dogma.

Really, do you think they were following the explicit teaching of Jesus - honestly. Men do wicked things - and will use anything to justify it...

What is the actual Christian moral code that the colonialists should have been following? Slavery was explicitly endorsed as bible-based by the Southern Baptist Convention. Australian Aborigine’s were incarcerated in ‘missions’ run by the Christian Church. The Conquistadors destroyed the Incas and Aztecs with the explicit intention of Christianizing them. In ALL cases the native cultures were annihilated in the process

Further back, the Inquisitions saved ‘souls’ by torturing and killing Muslims, Jews and apostates. The Crusades actually pillaged and sacked a fellow Christian state, i.e. Constantinople, en route to Jerusalem.

So what are these “explicit teaching of Jesus” again and where does one find them actually practiced.

Again, that is opinion, no more valid or correct than it's opposite. As far as the future goes, I don't worry much about it - just to say, given birth rates and their aggressive nature Muslims are going to eat our lunch. But of course, it would only be the evolutionary process in all it's glory - the strong survive.

Uh, are you saying that the granting of full civil rights to women and blacks was NOT a good thing in your opinion? In my opinion it was. If you don’t think so, what are your reasons for not granting them to another segment of the community which is currently discriminated against, i.e. homosexuals?

The “aggressive nature” of Muslims is based on religion, NOT secular values. ALL religions are aggressive, given the opportunity, in getting the agenda of their deity enforced. Both the 'Christian Right' in the USA and Muslim fundamentalists in their communities actively resist secular values on the basis that “god’s law” should take precedence. This is the danger of religion.

In evolutionary terms, it is not the “strong who survive” but the life-forms that are adaptable to changing circumstances. For humans an immutable worldview, e.g. religion or communism, is less likely to enable a community’s survival than a secular one with a moral code which is adaptable to the needs of society. The welfare of society is the determinant of moral values.

[seer]

Yes I’m aware that Religious Right activists are attempting to rewrite history and claim that the USA, as a Christian nation, must give precedence to Christian principles. But, in fact, the USA was firmly established as a secular nation not a religion-based one.

Again Tassman, no one is rewriting history - our founding document was religious in nature: We are endowed by our creator.

Second, I gave you a link to the Library of Congress. For those readers who care about the truth of the matter:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html

Its Constitution is a secular document. It does not appeal to Christianity, or any supreme being. The U.S. government derives from people, not god, as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union........"

The Constitution nowhere deals with the source of our rights. That was established in the DoI. By the way many founders did want to include God in the Constitution. But the nowhere did the Constitution prevent men from effecting laws according to their religious beliefs

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in a letter on January 1st, 1802 as a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison also wrote that "Strongly guarded…… is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." If this is not clear enough the Treaty of Tripoli specifically states “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion……”

Was that the same Madison that instituted the chaplin service to teach christian ethics to military men?

By keeping religion separate from the state, atheists and religionists are entitled to maintain their worldview, without interference from the state. Thus, in the instance of granting full civil rights to homosexuals, the only valid objections are secular ones. Objections based on purely religious grounds are not acceptable in a secular state.

That is pure nonsense, the idea that religious men can not effect the laws of their land according to their beliefs.

Again: the laws on the state level (in the early 13 states) were biblically based. We had laws against working on the sabbath (which lasted in my state until the 60s). Laws against fornication, adultery, blasphmey, sodomy, etc... We even had tax supported state churches.

Obviously the founders did not agree with you since many of them went home are used biblical principles to inform the laws of their states. Again "blue laws" (like not working on the Sabbath) lasted in many New England states until the 1960s. You refused to acknowledge this FACT.

Stalin and Mao were totalitarian dictators motivated by a rigid ideology not much different in kind to the rigid ideologies of religious theocracies….as some want to see in the USA. The danger, in both instances, is the blanket imposition of an ideology on an entire populace, whether willing or not.

That is not what I asked. Why is your opinion more correct or valid than theirs - objectively?

Secular laws in a secular democracy can only restrict individual rights if those rights can be shown to be detrimental to the welfare of the state, e.g. the ‘right’ of a psychopath to murder people.

Nonsense, did you know that when Jefferson and Madison rewrote the Virginia Code they included strict penalties for homosexual behavior?

But here is another problem - you have no idea if wide spread acceptenance of homosexual behavior will have a detrimental effect on the wefare of the state in the future.

In a secular nation such as the US, with its formalized separation of Church and State, laws cannot be legitimately based on religious dogma.

Of course they can AND WERE! Are you dense? Why did we have sabbath laws? Laws against sodomy, fornication, blasphmey, adultery, etc... And tax supported churches? These laws were found in all the early states instituted by the very Founders you quote.

So what are these “explicit teaching of Jesus” again and where does one find them actually practiced.

Read your New Testament, the moral injunctions are not had to find. I try to practice them everyday - as do dozens of people that I know personally. Do we fail at times - yes...

Uh, are you saying that the granting of full civil rights to women and blacks was NOT a good thing in your opinion? In my opinion it was. If you don’t think so, what are your reasons for not granting them to another segment of the community which is currently discriminated against, i.e. homosexuals?

You did not answer the question - why is your opinion on this matter more correct or valid than it's opposite. Please stay on point.

In evolutionary terms, it is not the “strong who survive” but the life-forms that are adaptable to changing circumstances. For humans an immutable worldview, e.g. religion or communism, is less likely to enable a community’s survival than a secular one with a moral code which is adaptable to the needs of society. The welfare of society is the determinant of moral values.

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? The facts is Islam will take Europe within 50 years, their birth rates are three times higher - their beliefs are spreading like widfire across the world. They are winning. And the fact is that we survived for most of human history with "immutable" worldviews.

Not just my opinion. The United Nations ‘Human Development Index’ measures a country's well-being through its average achievements in the basic aspects of human development: health, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. Health is measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio; and standard of living by GDP per capita.

http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Interestingly the highest ranking countries tend to be the most secular ones. The lowest ranking ones tend to be those most committed to a rigid ideology such as Communism or religion, as can be seen in the world wide statistics re atheism.

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/com_atheist.html

Of course it is your opinion, and the UN's.Even your goals are subjective. You subjectively set the standard then tell us which countries best fit the standard. Of course you are refering mostly to Western countries - born out of the Christian religion. Western counties that all seem to be going bankrupt. You see the freedom we now enjoy is relatively new in human history - and may be a short lived exception - it may not be ultimately advantageous - how would you know?

[seer]

Tassman

Initially tribal gods were evolutionarily advantageous. Belief in them unified tribes against rival tribes and provided rules to the tribe’s cohesive advantage. But, nowadays religion is a disadvantage. What were once local, tribal gods demand universal recognition. Thus, the Muslim god and the Christian god (i.e. their followers) in say, Nigeria demand allegiance at the expense of the rival god and fight to the death, in the name of their god, to obtain it.

The “barbaric societies in the last century” lasted only for the lifetime of the totalitarian dictators running them. This is nothing compared to the systematic evil perpetrated by the Christian colonial powers for over 500 years.

This deserves more attention. If there is no God Tassman, then all this is just the evolutionarily process playing out. So why the moral outrage? Does a fish complain because the water is wet? Were is the "evil" in a godless universe? There is only the evolutionarily process rolling out...

And why isn't a belief in a god still advantageous? Look at the countries that were Muslim 200 years ago and the countries that are Muslim today. Like I said, they are winning.

Look at the demographics in Europe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK1pn...eature=related

The facts is, whether you want to admit it or not, it is the religious believer that is winning the race. It is clear that religious belief is still very advantageous.

[seer]

For those interested in truth rather that assertion.

This is from the Libray of Congress:

This whole site is worth looking at:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

[Tassman]

Again Tassman, no one is rewriting history - our founding document was religious in nature: We are endowed by our creator.

Second, I gave you a link to the Library of Congress. For those readers who care about the truth of the matter:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/religion.html




The Constitution nowhere deals with the source of our rights. That was established in the DoI. By the way many founders did want to include God in the Constitution. But the nowhere did the Constitution prevent men from effecting laws according to their religious beliefs

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html




Was that the same Madison that instituted the chaplin service to teach christian ethics to military men?



That is pure nonsense, the idea that religious men can not effect the laws of their land according to their beliefs.

Again: the laws on the state level (in the early 13 states) were biblically based. We had laws against working on the sabbath (which lasted in my state until the 60s). Laws against fornication, adultery, blasphmey, sodomy, etc... We even had tax supported state churches.

Obviously the founders did not agree with you since many of them went home are used biblical principles to inform the laws of their states. Again "blue laws" (like not working on the Sabbath) lasted in many New England states until the 1960s. You refused to acknowledge this FACT.

Can you not understand that individuals applying Christian principles, whatever they are is not the same as the official position of the Constitution of the USA which was created as a secular document with a separation of Church and State as spelt out by Thomas Jefferson, in his interpretation of the 1st Amendment in 1802, when he referred to it creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.

Oh, and the Declaration of Independence does not represent ANY law of the United States. It came before the establishment of the lawful government, which is embodied in the Constitution.

The religious right's attempts, to dismantle the “wall” between church and state erected by the country's founders are driven by misguided and sometimes deliberately inaccurate interpretations of American history.

One will ALWAYS get Christians opportunistically pushing their agenda e.g. trying deceitfully to teach Creationism in schools as science. When it comes to the crunch, if challenged, those with the religious agenda lose out every time, as we saw with the Scopes trial and the Dover verdict.

That is not what I asked. Why is your opinion more correct or valid than theirs - objectively?

My opinion is in line with the enlightened morality found in most of the developed world. It is a value judgment based on humankind’s observation and experience of history. We are an intelligent species and learn from our mistakes.

What I said was that the blanket imposition of an ideology (whether religious of secular) on an entire populace, whether willing or not, is a function of totalitarianism. Humanity has developed sufficiently to recognize what is good for the social organism and what is bad.

Totalitarianism, in all its forms, whether in a communist dictatorship or a religious theocracy, has been demonstrably proven to be harmful to the wellbeing of human beings. Take a glance at Saudi Arabia, with its Friday beheadings in obedience to Sharia Law or the Inquisitions of medieval Europe starting with Emperor Theodosius’ laws in 328 making heresy punishable by death.

Nonsense, did you know that when Jefferson and Madison rewrote the Virginia Code they included strict penalties for homosexual behavior?

But here is another problem - you have no idea if wide spread acceptenance of homosexual behavior will have a detrimental effect on the wefare of the state in the future.

Times change! Jefferson and Madison owned hundreds of saves too. Were they right about that?

The issue is one of equal rights. What reason can you give for denying a significant segment of the community full equal rights with the rest of the community, other than some unsupported scare tactics about what might happen?

Of course they can AND WERE! Are you dense? Why did we have sabbath laws? Laws against sodomy, fornication, blasphmey, adultery, etc... And tax supported churches? These laws were found in all the early states instituted by the very Founders you quote.

Concentrate!

I said that with the US’s formalized separation of Church and State, laws cannot be legitimately based on religious dogma. Of course many were based on Christian prejudices.

Read your New Testament, the moral injunctions are not had to find. I try to practice them everyday - as do dozens of people that I know personally. Do we fail at times - yes...

There are many interpretations of the morality of the NT. What you take to be moral injunctions are not necessarily taken as such by other Christians. Conservative and liberal Christians often have opposite views on matters such as pre-marital sex by engaged couples, divorce, ordination of gay and lesbian clergy, abortion access, physician assisted suicide, sex education in school, same-sex marriage, and dozens of other topics. There is NO objective, universal moral code to be obtained from the NT.

You did not answer the question - why is your opinion on this matter more correct or valid than it's opposite. Please stay on point.

The granting of full civil rights to women and blacks is in line with the developed enlightened morality of most of the western world, of which I am a part. This is a value judgment based on humankind’s observation and experience of history and which also informs the US Constitution.

It is blatantly obvious that NOT granting full civil rights to women and blacks is discriminatory and not to be tolerated in a society based on equal opportunity for all. And the same applies to homosexuals. Do you disagree? Why?

Do you make this stuff up as you go along? The facts is Islam will take Europe within 50 years, their birth rates are three times higher - their beliefs are spreading like widfire across the world. They are winning. And the fact is that we survived for most of human history with "immutable" worldviews.

Well we are not now, according to you and your interpretation of current history. What you are concerned about is religion taking over the world. Your problem is that it’s the wrong religion. Dear me! It is the religious mindset which is the problem and I blame the likes of you, with your religious certainties and supposed god-given right to impose them on everyone else. Same attitude, different religion, all equally destructive!

Oh, and in evolutionary biology, which was your initial point, it is not the strongest that survive but the most adaptable within the environment….as per the relative morality of secularism.

Of course it is your opinion, and the UN's.Even your goals are subjective. You subjectively set the standard then tell us which countries best fit the standard. Of course you are refering mostly to Western countries - born out of the Christian religion. Western counties that all seem to be going bankrupt. You see the freedom we now enjoy is relatively new in human history - and may be a short lived exception - it may not be ultimately advantageous - how would you know?

The western countries suffered recession caused by the sheer greed and reckless behavior of maverick bankers based in the one of the few developed countries which actually takes religion seriously, namely the USA. So much for the influence of Christianity on its adherents!

So you claim the standards of the UN (and me) are subjective. What it is measuring with the Human Development Index is: “a country's well-being through its average achievements in the basic aspects of human development: health, knowledge, and a decent standard of living. Health is measured by life expectancy at birth; knowledge is measured by a combination of the adult literacy rate and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio; and standard of living by GDP per capita.”

Would you rather that they be measured according to a country’s religiosity? You will see that these are the countries that tend to be at the bottom of the HDI list. They are the ones often wallowing in poverty, religious wars, e.g. Sierra Leone and superstition e.g. Nigeria, where African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_324943.html

Just to give two examples......

[Tassman]

This deserves more attention. If there is no God Tassman, then all this is just the evolutionarily process playing out. So why the moral outrage? Does a fish complain because the water is wet? Were is the "evil" in a godless universe? There is only the evolutionarily process rolling out...

The lack of deities does not imply a lack of morality. It just means that there hasn’t been a moral code imposed from on high by one of the various gods over human history.

What we have is natural morality, which is based on the prime imperative of survival of the species. Natural selection has resulted in certain instincts toward social cohesion among social animals, such as us, and it upon these instincts that humanity over the millennia has formulated its moral code and laws. All, at bottom, tend towards species survival.

You have not answered what the Christian “objective criterion” is that you claim to appeal to. As I said, Christians always claim to have one but it’s never articulated, except in vague terms. Christians have abandoned the Mosaic moral code. What is the divine code which replaced it? Don’t quote the ‘golden rule’. It has been common to ALL societies and long predates Jesus.

And why isn't a belief in a god still advantageous? Look at the countries that were Muslim 200 years ago and the countries that are Muslim today. Like I said, they are winning.

Look at the demographics in Europe:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XK1pn...eature=related

The facts is, whether you want to admit it or not, it is the religious believer that is winning the race. It is clear that religious belief is still very advantageous .

Not for the survival of the species it's not and ‘survival’ is the ONLY moral imperative. As I’ve already said, in the secular world, what is “right” is whatever enhances the cohesion and survival potential of the social unit. We maintain social cohesion, as social animals, by enforcing positive social behavior and punishing negative social behavior. It is instinctive. Thus we nurture our young, protect our ‘mate’, defend our tribe......and we punish murderers, thieves and the like. This is common to ALL societies regardless of religion, or none. It forms the basis of humanity's moral code.

[Tassman]

For those interested in truth rather that assertion.

This is from the Libray of Congress:

This whole site is worth looking at:

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89

The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.

The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."

No one is arguing that at the time of the Founding Fathers there were not a lot of deeply religious people in the USA. There were and there are to this day. This is not the point. Nor did the Continental-Confederation Congress represent the government of the USA after the Constitution of the USA was proclaimed. It was disbanded. Religionists throughout history have always endeavored to opportunistically insert their beliefs into legislation, so as to impose them on everyone else, and this has applied to the USA as well. It still does with the religious right's attempts, to dismantle the “wall” between church and state erected by the country's founders. You are one of them it seems.

The fact remains that at its inception the USA was intended to be a completely secular state as reflected by the Treaty of Tripoli which begins: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…….” The treaty was formulated and was endorsed in 1797 by Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state and John Adams as president concurred, sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams’ signature on 10 June, 1797. This was a multi-review process and never raised concern among the legislative body. It became a public document through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797 and embodies the original intentions of the founding fathers..

[nightbringer]

Oh, and in evolutionary biology, which was your initial point, it is not the strongest that survive but the most adaptable within the environment….as per the relative morality of secularism.

Seeing as you're going along the 'morality evolves' line I thought I'd re-post what I posted earlier (with some minor edits):

Let us say that to meaningfully debate something there must be some truth to the matter. That is, our propositions must potentially correspond to some reality. If we were debating the shape of a table our debate would only be meaningful if we believed there was actually a table to debate about. Imagine if we didn't believe that tables existed yet we still spent time debating their shape. We would rightly be called rather loony. I see no difference with moral propositions. It is only meaningful to debate the rightness or wrongness of rape if in reality there is a truth to the matter - that is, rape either truly ought not to be done or it can be. There must be an actually existing moral imperative or a good for our moral propositions to correspond to. Some external moral facts. Otherwise our debate would be as irrational as the two fellows arguing about tables while disbelieving in their existence.

Now it sounds to me that you don't believe that moral propositions correspond to any reality. They are merely human conventions that have gradually 'evolved' or progressed. But if that is the case, and there is no truth to the matter then why say that one culture's morality is better or worse than another's? It is like saying that it is more truthful to say that the table is square than circular when the table doesn't even exist. What is it about an ancient culture's morality than makes it less worthy than a modern 'enlightened' culture? Unless there is some truth to be had to the matter then there is nothing that could make your choosing one culture's standard over another anything more than an arbitrary choice.

Let us examine this another way. Generally we agree that scientific knowledge has advanced over time. It has progressed or 'evolved' you might say. Now why do we say that scientific knowledge has actually made some genuine progression and not that it has just changed in some value-neutral sense? It is because scientific claims correspond to some reality and we see that as time has progressed we have amassed more and more scientific propositions that correspond to the reality of how the world works. Note that the standard we use for judging the scientific claims of a culture is not their age, it is how well those claims correspond to reality. If scientific propositions didn't correspond to any reality scientific 'progression' wouldn't be progression at all, it would be only arbitrary change. It is only because scientific claims have some potential truth content that we can judge them. Same with moral propositions. We need to hold that they have truth content - that they have some reality independent of the moral propositions themselves. Some moral facts to be found.

What exactly these moral facts are and how we can get knowledge of them is an interestingg debate but the point is, unless we hold that there are moral facts, moral debate is meaningless.

Pointing at the variance of moral beliefs between cultures is no more effective for showing that there are no moral factss than it would be to point to the variance of scientific beliefs in cultures to demonstrate that there are no natural facts.

Perhaps though you agree that there ARE moral facts. Perhaps what makes something good is its ability to sustain the species. Murder is wrong for instance because it actively goes against preserving the species. The obvious question to ask is, "why is it good to preserve the species?" Sure we have a tendency to desire survival but it doesn't logically follow that I ought to desire this or that there is any obligation to at all. Indeed what rationally compels me to desire your survival and not just my own?

Now it is true that you can ask the "why logically ought I adhere to this morality?" question about any alleged source of moral facts. The search then is for a non-arbitrary, logically necessary source of moral facts. I'm not going to pretend I am able to demonstrate what that source is (although I'm personally confident that in some way in resides in God). That doesn't however stop your position being arbitrary. You cannot say it doesn't matter that your position is arbitrary because I haven't given you a replacement. That would be like the drowning man who thinks it doesn't matter that he's drowning because his opponent is drowning too.

[seer]

The lack of deities does not imply a lack of morality. It just means that there hasn’t been a moral code imposed from on high by one of the various gods over human history.

What we have is natural morality, which is based on the prime imperative of survival of the species. Natural selection has resulted in certain instincts toward social cohesion among social animals, such as us, and it upon these instincts that humanity over the millennia has formulated its moral code and laws. All, at bottom, tend towards species survival.

That is fine Tass, but my problem is your moral outrage over "evils" that are perfectly natural to our species.

You have not answered what the Christian “objective criterion” is that you claim to appeal to. As I said, Christians always claim to have one but it’s never articulated, except in vague terms. Christians have abandoned the Mosaic moral code. What is the divine code which replaced it? Don’t quote the ‘golden rule’. It has been common to ALL societies and long predates Jesus.

Again nonsense. I gave a very specific response, and gave very specific examples (about 6 or 7) gleened from the New Testament moral injunctions. There are more if you would like. BTW - many moral laws transend both Testaments.

[seer]

No one is arguing that at the time of the Founding Fathers there were not a lot of deeply religious people in the USA. There were and there are to this day. This is not the point. Nor did the Continental-Confederation Congress represent the government of the USA after the Constitution of the USA was proclaimed. It was disbanded. Religionists throughout history have always endeavored to opportunistically insert their beliefs into legislation, so as to impose them on everyone else, and this has applied to the USA as well. It still does with the religious right's attempts, to dismantle the “wall” between church and state erected by the country's founders. You are one of them it seems.

That is just unfounded Tass. AGAIN - just about all the States incorporated religious moral law into their various legal systems. This included Jefferson and the Virginia Code - "separation" did not mean what you suggest - religious men have just as much right to effect the system according to their beliefs, as the non-religious man does according to his belief. Of course we must build consensus.

Let me give an example: I believe that murder is wrong solely on religious grounds, you believe it is wrong for secular reasons - why is your opinion more valid than mine?

The fact remains that at its inception the USA was intended to be a completely secular state as reflected by the Treaty of Tripoli which begins: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion…….” The treaty was formulated and was endorsed in 1797 by Timothy Pickering, the secretary of state and John Adams as president concurred, sending the document on to the Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially ratified by the Senate with John Adams’ signature on 10 June, 1797. This was a multi-review process and never raised concern among the legislative body. It became a public document through its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797 and embodies the original intentions of the founding fathers..

You are cherry picking again. We were not formed as a theocracy - we did not want a Church of England situation. That did not mean that religious thinking could not inform the laws of the land - expecially on the state level. Again, we had tax supported state churches - that many of the founders supported. We have the chaplain service for the Congress and Military that lasts to this day - that is on a Federal level.

And let's quote Adams:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.
John Adams, Works, Vol. X, pp. 45-46, to Thomas Jefferson on June 28, 1813.

Treaty of Tripoli

http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissue...les.asp?id=125

The facts is, whether you want to admit it or not, it is the religious believer that is winning the race. It is clear that religious belief is still very advantageous .

Not for the survival of the species it's not and ‘survival’ is the ONLY moral imperative. As I’ve already said, in the secular world, what is “right” is whatever enhances the cohesion and survival potential of the social unit. We maintain social cohesion, as social animals, by enforcing positive social behavior and punishing negative social behavior. It is instinctive. Thus we nurture our young, protect our ‘mate’, defend our tribe......and we punish murderers, thieves and the like. This is common to ALL societies regardless of religion, or none. It forms the basis of humanity's moral code.

So is what the Muslims are doing right? How do you know if their ideology won't help mankind survive?

I have another question - how does homosexual behavior help us survive as a species?

[seer]

Seeing as you're going along the 'morality evolves' line I thought I'd re-post what I posted earlier (with some minor edits):

Let us say that to meaningfully debate something there must be some truth to the matter. That is, our propositions must potentially correspond to some reality. If we were debating the shape of a table our debate would only be meaningful if we believed there was actually a table to debate about. Imagine if we didn't believe that tables existed yet we still spent time debating their shape. We would rightly be called rather loony. I see no difference with moral propositions. It is only meaningful to debate the rightness or wrongness of rape if in reality there is a truth to the matter - that is, rape either truly ought not to be done or it can be. There must be an actually existing moral imperative or a good for our moral propositions to correspond to. Some external moral facts. Otherwise our debate would be as irrational as the two fellows arguing about tables while disbelieving in their existence.

Now it sounds to me that you don't believe that moral propositions correspond to any reality. They are merely human conventions that have gradually 'evolved' or progressed. But if that is the case, and there is no truth to the matter then why say that one culture's morality is better or worse than another's? It is like saying that it is more truthful to say that the table is square than circular when the table doesn't even exist. What is it about an ancient culture's morality than makes it less worthy than a modern 'enlightened' culture? Unless there is some truth to be had to the matter then there is nothing that could make your choosing one culture's standard over another anything more than an arbitrary choice.

Let us examine this another way. Generally we agree that scientific knowledge has advanced over time. It has progressed or 'evolved' you might say. Now why do we say that scientific knowledge has actually made some genuine progression and not that it has just changed in some value-neutral sense? It is because scientific claims correspond to some reality and we see that as time has progressed we have amassed more and more scientific propositions that correspond to the reality of how the world works. Note that the standard we use for judging the scientific claims of a culture is not their age, it is how well those claims correspond to reality. If scientific propositions didn't correspond to any reality scientific 'progression' wouldn't be progression at all, it would be only arbitrary change. It is only because scientific claims have some potential truth content that we can judge them. Same with moral propositions. We need to hold that they have truth content - that they have some reality independent of the moral propositions themselves. Some moral facts to be found.

What exactly these moral facts are and how we can get knowledge of them is an interestingg debate but the point is, unless we hold that there are moral facts, moral debate is meaningless.

Pointing at the variance of moral beliefs between cultures is no more effective for showing that there are no moral factss than it would be to point to the variance of scientific beliefs in cultures to demonstrate that there are no natural facts.

Perhaps though you agree that there ARE moral facts. Perhaps what makes something good is its ability to sustain the species. Murder is wrong for instance because it actively goes against preserving the species. The obvious question to ask is, "why is it good to preserve the species?" Sure we have a tendency to desire survival but it doesn't logically follow that I ought to desire this or that there is any obligation to at all. Indeed what rationally compels me to desire your survival and not just my own?

Now it is true that you can ask the "why logically ought I adhere to this morality?" question about any alleged source of moral facts. The search then is for a non-arbitrary, logically necessary source of moral facts. I'm not going to pretend I am able to demonstrate what that source is (although I'm personally confident that in some way in resides in God). That doesn't however stop your position being arbitrary. You cannot say it doesn't matter that your position is arbitrary because I haven't given you a replacement. That would be like the drowning man who thinks it doesn't matter that he's drowning because his opponent is drowning too.

Amen. It is interesting that people like Tass will call certain things "evil" and express moral outrage over certain facts of history. When those facts are merely the natural process playing out. It's like they intuitively know that certain acts are objectively wrong (not grounded simply in personal/social preference) but will not admit it.

[Doug Shaver]

I'd like to know if there are any defendable philosophical arguments against the morality of homosexual practise that do not rely on theism as a premise.

That could depend on what you mean by "defendable." Being a philosophy major, I assume that some competent philosophers have come up with well-reasoned nontheistic arguments to that conclusion. I haven't seen any of those arguments, but I haven't been looking for them, either.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

That could depend on what you mean by "defendable." Being a philosophy major, I assume that some competent philosophers have come up with well-reasoned nontheistic arguments to that conclusion. I haven't seen any of those arguments, but I haven't been looking for them, either.

To me the question itself is flawed because it was not morality that was the basis for homosexuality being declared "detestable" just as it was not morality that declared eating shellfish and putting a "non-virgin" wife to death to be the right way to live. Shell fish absorb their nutrition from the water they live in and along the shores of civilization shellfish lived in virtual sewers hence the prohibition. It was a matter of health. Same for non-virgin wives since no Israelite would have sex with an unmarried woman a non-virgin must have had sex outside the community or even with an animal. Hence the high probability that she would be a carrier of diseases. Now we get to unprotected anal sex which is also detestable because it is a grave health risk. People who condemn same sex love are missing the point entirely. There is nothing wrong about love between any 2 people. There are, however, many physical activities that are dangerous from a health perspective. That includes such things as sex during menstrual flow and bestiality. Both are stated as detestable or as often translated, an abomination. And, medical science reaches the same conclusion but it took almost 3,600 years for science to catch up. How long will it take various sects and creeds to comprehend that Jesus condemns not people of the same sex who love each other but he does frequently admonish all of us to be concerned about ourselves and not judge others.

So, rephrasing the question a bit to remove the concept of morality and ask if any discipline outside of religions condemns unprotected anal sex the answer is a definite yes. Nothing, however, from the sciences nor from Jesus condemns homosexual love.

[nightbringer]

That could depend on what you mean by "defendable." Being a philosophy major, I assume that some competent philosophers have come up with well-reasoned nontheistic arguments to that conclusion. I haven't seen any of those arguments, but I haven't been looking for them, either.

Yeah I mean just a well reasoned argument which doesn't depend on theistic presumptions. I'm not necessarily looking for an argument that actually works, just seeing what attempts have been made.

[nightbringer]

To me the question itself is flawed because it was not morality that was the basis for homosexuality being declared "detestable" just as it was not morality that declared eating shellfish and putting a "non-virgin" wife to death to be the right way to live. Shell fish absorb their nutrition from the water they live in and along the shores of civilization shellfish lived in virtual sewers hence the prohibition. It was a matter of health. Same for non-virgin wives since no Israelite would have sex with an unmarried woman a non-virgin must have had sex outside the community or even with an animal. Hence the high probability that she would be a carrier of diseases. Now we get to unprotected anal sex which is also detestable because it is a grave health risk. People who condemn same sex love are missing the point entirely. There is nothing wrong about love between any 2 people. There are, however, many physical activities that are dangerous from a health perspective. That includes such things as sex during menstrual flow and bestiality. Both are stated as detestable or as often translated, an abomination. And, medical science reaches the same conclusion but it took almost 3,600 years for science to catch up. How long will it take various sects and creeds to comprehend that Jesus condemns not people of the same sex who love each other but he does frequently admonish all of us to be concerned about ourselves and not judge others.

So, rephrasing the question a bit to remove the concept of morality and ask if any discipline outside of religions condemns unprotected anal sex the answer is a definite yes. Nothing, however, from the sciences nor from Jesus condemns homosexual love.

If by morality we mean broadly our maxims, laws, and concerns about how we ought to behave then quite obviously homosexuality has been a topic discussed within the moral sphere. That religious premises have been used to justify being against it does not mean the issue is in any way excluded from the moral sphere. You are free to believe it is not an immoral action but to say that it shouldn't be discussed as part of the moral sphere is ridiculous.