Before I go on, it is paramount to remember that in the Christian God's eyes, all sins carry the same weight. Also in His eyes, thinking about the sin is the equivalent to actually carrying it out. So the next time you think you want someone dead, you may as well just kill them, because in God's eyes, you already have. However I feel it my duty to point out that human laws look on them very differently. In human law think about killing people all you want, but if you actually did kill someone, you might find a needle in your arm.
Christians commonly use Leviticus 18:22 to decry homosexuals:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.Or Colossians 3:18 to domineer women:
Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.Or Exodus 21:7 to both advocate slavery and suppress women:
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.But here's one you don't often hear about. It comes from Leviticus 19:19:
Keep my decrees. " 'Do not mate different kinds of animals. " 'Do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. " 'Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material.'Now that's news to me. Apparently planting two types of seed in the same field is a hell worthy trespass. But the one that really gets to me is the wearing of two types of woven cloth. Do the Christians know about this? I mean I've seen Kosher food for the Jews, and Halal food for the Muslims, but I have never ever seen a sign for Christian safe clothing.
I just looked through my closet... okay I didn't, I just looked through my long overdue hamper of laundry and most of my shirts are a poly - cotton blend. Am I going to hell?
Talk about putting the "mental" back in to fundamental.
The point I'm trying to make is if one is going to use the The Bible to support their beliefs, then shouldn't they have to follow every aspect of The Bible? I mean, The Bible isn't a cafeteria menu. You're either following the whole book or none of it. Every part of The Bible is as important as any other part of The Bible. So maybe Christians ought to re-think the book they put so much value into? Or at the very least, rethink beliefs.
Look, I don't mean to harp on Christians. Well, actually I do, but the reason I haven't addressed the crazy stuff that Muslims do in the name of religion- despite having been raised Muslim, and a practising one at that- is I happen to know more about Christianity than Islam; that should give you an idea of how well this former practising Muslim knew his religion.
Damn, all this seemed more eloquent in my head, but lately, for some reason, I haven't been able to put my thoughts to paper/screen as well as I should be able to. Apologies for this below par entry.
15 comments:
I think that cherry picking is a prevalent practice in Christianity, but it seems this happens across all religions. As we become a more progressive society, it seems harder for one to be strictly orthodox, especially since religious texts get older and people question their literal interpretation and their application to contemporary life.
I think religious books are only meant to be general practice guidelines, not instruction manuals on life. As such, I would agree that it's wrong for a Christian man to say homosexuals are sinful while he himself is living with a woman who is not his wife in the eyes of God.
"I think that cherry picking is a prevalent practice in Christianity, but it seems this happens across all religions."
And therein lies my problem. If people are going to quote scripture in order to judge and denounce people for their beliefs or values, why can't I quote the same scripture to illustrate their hypocrisy? Granted, the whole "two types of linen in the same cloth" seems ridiculous to many, but so does "man shall not lie with man as he does with women" to impugn homosexuals.
But doesn't the Bible also say "Judge not, lest ye be judged"?
According to the holy books, they are not guides, many people may choose to believe that because it makes practising their religion a little more tolerable, but the fact of the matter is, especially in the case of The Bible, it is the word of the Lord, and therefore is beyond contravention. A truly devout Christian accepts the whole Bible because they can't choose which of God's words he or she wishes to follow. And yes, they accept it literally - that's why many Bible-belt states do not advocate the teaching of evolution as it contradicts the Bible's notion that the planet is six thousand years old.
I suppose this explains my lack of faith. I knew I couldn't follow any religion faithfully, and so I chose not to follow any at all. In the same breath, I will acquiesce that the Bible does allow for slip ups and acknowledges that humans are inherently flawed and will never be able to live up to God's standard.
I'm perennially confused about this sort of stuff.
You know what would be fun? Photocopying the passage in the Bible which states that working on the Sabbath is a stonable offence and pasting on the front door of a Bible book shop that opens on Sundays.
Hmmm, a thought just occurred to me. If one were a practising Christian, could they, under the freedom of religion act, refuse to work on a Sunday? Same thing with Jews on a Saturday?
I guess Alan Shore (James Spader on Boston Legal on Religion) was on to something when he said that freedom of religion is as grossly overplayed as it is misapplied.
But then again, as I argued with freedom of speech, freedom is an absolute.
Fuck! I'm really confused now!
I agree with you Shay, which is why I don't subscribe to religion either.
But while it's easy to look at commitment to religion as black or white (you follow the Bible entirely or not at all), having a hard and fast rule like that can really discount the benefits of religion. We live in a secular society, but religion does provide some moral fibre to our core beliefs. If murder were decriminalized, would everyone just start killing everyone else? Or is there really a natural law that would stop us? Is this law of nature based in religion or something else?
On freedom of religion, the Alberta Supreme Court recently ruled that Hutterites can continue getting their driver's licenses without photos, per their religion. But then next door in B.C., there's still controversy over the sextuplets who were given blood transfusions despite their parents being Jehovah's Witnesses. So clearly, even in this country, freedom of religion is very much gray, and certainly not absolute.
BTW, I used to really enjoy Boston Legal when it was The Practice and they effectively argued both sides of moral cases. But then the show went into a nosedive. Glad to see the writing has picked up again - that Scientology clip was good.
Gosh you're fun Nhi.
You raise some very interesting points.
I would have thought that following the scriptures completely would have complimented faith, and by extension, religion. Let's face it, you have to be pretty devout to take everything the scriptures offer as fact. Granted that in the olden days this was much easier as the holy books provided answers to questions that science couldn't.
I'm sure religion has a lot to do with our core moral code today. But, let's just say - if one doesn't subscribe to the notion that the scriptures were handed down to us by God, that would mean that the Holy Books are a creation of people. If that is the case, an argument could be made that people developed our moral code simply by learning. After millennia of everyone killing everyone, coupled with disease and famine, maybe, just maybe, someone realised that if we are to survive as a species, a moral code of conduct would be imperative.(Ahem... but then what would they have to say about the Inquisition and the crusades?) Also, it was recently discovered that there is a gene within us that is responsible for altruism, if that is indeed that case, then maybe there's one for morality too?
I remember reading about the sextuplets in B.C. and I was of two minds about that as well. While as parents, in my opinion, they should be allowed to raise their children within their faith just like anyone else. But at the same they're infants, defenceless and weak. That really pulls at the heart strings. I think that comes from a huge paradigm shift in that, we are one of the first generations to think death is the worst thing that can happen. Back in the days of olde, there were many things worse than death - excommunication from your society and dishonour are two that come readily come to mind. Likewise, in religion, a place in heaven was held higher than death. That's just a conflict of beliefs. Now that I think about it, if the decision were up to me, I would have let the parents make their own choices despite the public outcry that would be sure to follow a la Terry Schiavo.
Never really saw "The Practice". Were the characters quirky or was it just your typical run-of-the-mill lawyer type show. Right now the only inclination I have to watch it is for the Alan Shore character even though his only shows up in the fourth or fifth season.
Glad you enjoyed the clip :)
Get a room.... ;)
Ignoring Darrell...
You raise an interesting point. Is morality caused by nature or nurture? I don't know. But psychologists have discovered a correlation between the appearance of a person's ventromedial prefrontal cortex and their moral behaviour. Statistics show that this section of the brain is different in people who have committed homicide than in those who haven't. And they have shown that one's moral behaviour can change if there is damage to this section of the brain later in life, even if one were born with a normal ventromedial prefrontal cortex. It's not entirely the same as genetics, but it's an argument that favours morality not being a learned behaviour.
Excellent point about our changing views on death. However, if you were the babies' doctor, bound by the Hippocratic oath, could you allow religious freedom to be absolute in this case? It seems like it would actually be easier in this situation to place yourself in the parents' shoes. They are compelled to follow their religion, but the doctor is not. What if the doctor's religion considers it sinful to allow a preventable death? Could you knowingly let them die if the matter were in your control?
Further questions on this to make matters worse: Would the violation of religious freedom be lessened if all the babies survived? What if they all died - then is it worse? Ultimately, do the means justify the ends?
I've never actually seen Boston Legal, so I can't compare. But the lawyers on The Practice were different, but appropriately so. When the show started to get bad, they emphasized too much of the lawyers' personal lives and it detracted from the show's ethical roots. From the clip, it sounds like Boston Legal is coming full circle.
Shit! This is the second time typing this. Lost everything I had already written. ARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!!
I accidentally clicked on a link and when I hit the back button... everything was gone! *sniff sniff*
Blogger really need to address this issue. I know there is a way to code the page in manner whereby if the text validation fails, or if some idiot navigates away from the text field, hitting back will re-populate the field.
Regarding nature v nurture, I'm not so sure it's a case of "either/or", I believe that it's a combination of the two. I'm sure we could both find instances where exclusively nature prevails over exclusively nurture and vice versa.
Question - About the ventromedial pre frontal cortex, can it also be altered by psychological trauma as well, or would that be a different mechanism at work?
Pertaining the doctor's Hippocratic oath, I wouldn't know how far it extends in this case because the procedure is being performed on minors, and hence requires parental consent. If said consent was withheld, can the doctor decide for the children? If so, then what's the point of consent? If a doctor were to find him or herself in a conflict of interest between the wishes of the patient (or their legal guardian) and their own religion, morals or values, wouldn't they have the option to recuse (sp?) themselves from the case?
At the risk of opening a whole other can of worms, are doctors who execute euthanasia in violation of their Hippocratic oath? A corner stone value of the oath is "first, do no harm", so by putting one out of their misery and concurrently easing their pain, is their oath infringed? The only way I can the doctors being absolved of this whole messy scenario would be with the intervention of the state.
You're right, I probably did take the easy way out by siding with the parents, but I stand by my decision. Who is to say that their religious beliefs hold any less value than anyone else's? They should be allowed to raise their family in accordance with their beliefs just like anyone else, regardless of how inane we think they are. And I do think they are. In my mind it's the equivalent of firing the meat inspectors and protecting yourself from salmonella by saying grace before dinner.
To be honest, I've never been a proponent of the ends justifying the means for the simple reason that when the ends don't work out, there are usually innocents that get caught in the means that people tend to forget. Actually, even when the ends do work out, there are innocents caught in the means that people tend to forget. Additionally, in this case, let's just say all the babies had survived, it would have set a compelling yet dangerous precedent of "See? we do know best, regardless of your beliefs".
I've just grabbed seasons one and two of The Practice, look forward to checking them out.
I believe Blogger has introduced an AutoSave function, but this only works with your own posts on your own blog, not in comments. I agree, it does need to be addressed. The secondhand thoughts are never quite as good.
I agree about the "nature vs. nurture" debate and I think most schools of psychology now agree it's a combination of both. My original point in raising this example is that religion cannot be seen as strictly a manmade concept. I believe there is an element of nature that provides a moral code, even if the scriptures are a product of external factors.
I believe the trauma would need to be physical, though I wonder if deep psychological trauma could have a similar impact?
A doctor is supposed to provide the best care for the patient, regardless of other circumstances. In this case, I can see a lack of consent being overridden for the benefit of the patients. In its truest form, I think a doctor is supposed to disregard his/her own beliefs and morals when in practice. Obviously laws of the land would apply here and colour everything gray. You mentioned euthanasia, but there's also the question of abortion. Again, no absolutes.
Laws protecting minors are made to preserve their best interests, despite parental intervention. If my kid breaks a window and I feel striking him with a cane until he bleeds is suitable punishment, should I be allowed to do this? What if this were dictated by my religion that says children need to be submissive to their parents? Even in the name of religious freedom, how can it be argued that the best decision was to keep those babies from having blood transfusions? How would this have benefitted anyone? Only two of the four surviving babies were confirmed to have received transfusions; once those babies grow up and become adults, I don't know they could support their parent's position, especially if they convert religions. How would they feel knowing that blood transfusions might have saved the lives of their siblings who didn't survive?
I agree it's a dangerous precedent, but I also think it's the lesser of two evils. While I value freedom of religion, I don't want the price of this freedom to come at the cost of societal welfare. And I'm glad most international governments support this position.
Yeah, I noticed that too. Wonder why they didn't take it a step further?
Whoops, apologies for misinterpreting your point. After re-reading your remarks, the light in my head flickered on... eventually.
You make an excellent point Nhi, and initially I was on board, regarding the overriding of lack of consent for the benefit of the patient, but then a thought occurred to me and this is the only way I can argue that not giving the babies a transfusion is the right thing to do. Your point stands on solid ground only if you assume that the physical benefits outweigh the spiritual benefits. Unfortunately, physical benefits are easier to measure in this lifetime, unlike spiritual benefits, which can only be assessed once one is dead.
About your kid breaking the window, you're 100% correct. But, I feel the need to point out that if the law of the land were to keep superseding the "Laws of God", there will come a point, that is if we're not already there, where no one will be able to practise their religion to the extent that their scriptures require them to. The unfortunate thing here is that we're using a secular ruler to measure religious standards. In my view they're simply incompatible.
I mean many of us are willing to say I believe in freedom of religion until something in that religion offends our sensibilities. And I'll be the first to admit, I very guilty of this.
I suppose the larger question is can the religious and the secular co-exist without without stepping on each other toes? Probably not.
Good point about physical vs. spiritual benefits. But you're assuming all spiritual benefits are the same (i.e., there is one spiritually "right" way to live your physical life). Who is to say that when it is Judgement Day, we don't find out that it really IS wrong to get blood transfusions? Or maybe these parents will find out that they are wrong to want to deny life-saving blood transfusions to their children? In terms of spiritual benefit, aren't we all judged by a singular power? And if not, then aren't we customizing morals out of convenience? Yes, we can only measure the physical benefits now, but how can we ever measure spiritual ones, especially when we're not all using the same religious ruler?
There will always be a moving balance between secular and religious rule, and I don't believe that either can or should be followed exclusively. It has often been said that God helps those who help themselves. If there's only one thing to follow religiously, it should be that sense of autonomy and independent thinking to find the answers we are looking for.
But that's just it isn't it Nhi? THEY believe that that is the way to their salvation. I mean, let's face it with with all the religions in the world today and in the past, they all can't be right. The only one who can say whether anyone's spiritual path is indeed the right one, is God, and that's when faith comes in. This family has faith that their way is the correct one and without spiritual assessment available in their terrestrial life, faith is all they have to go on.
Also there are many poly-theistic religions out there such as Hinduism and many African and Central & South American "tribal religions"; according to them we're judged by multiple powers, but I digress.
I'm having trouble understanding what you mean by "And if not, then aren't we customizing morals out of convenience?" If I'm reading it right, I would have to disagree; I would have thought it would be the secularists who customise their morality to their own convenience, after all, it's the religious folk, whose morality has been more steadfast.
I'm not so sure that all religion can nor should be measured with the same ruler. I think it might be more prudent to measure each religion with their respective rulers.
I completely agree Nhi, free-thinking and autonomy would progress humankind exponentially if it were universally practised. Maybe I should qualify that a little, sprinkle of community wouldn't hurt, we are, after all, social creatures.
Just finished watching the first few episodes of "The Practice". I'm getting in to it. It was really neat to see a chain-smoking judge puffing away in the court-room... talk about dating the show.
I have absolutly nothing constructive to add to this conversation. I was just feeling left out.
Sorry, Al!
My comment about customizing morals ties back to the idea of cherry picking. We tend to pick religions that work for us. I can't be a Muslim because I'm not disciplined enough to pray 5 times a day. So if I were to pick a religion, I would pick something "easier", something more compatible with my secular lifestyle. And then within that, there's further cherry picking.
My point is that the idea of religion being spiritual redemption is lost when we're all "cheating" to begin with. How can we even be judged by our own respective religious rulers when we pick the religions to start with? This goes back to the question of the Jehovah's Witnesses... what if it were wrong for the doctor NOT to provide those blood transfusions? We agree no one religion is right. But even if each were measured by their own respective rulers, there's a contradiction because in this case, the only possible actions were to give or not give blood. Either way, someone's wrong, even according to their own beliefs.
Shay, I'm not sure of my argument anymore. I think this is turning into an anti-religion rant, which is not my intention, but sometimes it seems so defeating to try and do the right thing, when it's unclear what that is. I'd rather not even try.
The Practice won Emmys in its first couple seasons, I think. I didn't start watching until season 3, maybe. But it was still good then.
Al, you poor baby :P
Nhi, I never took your comments to be an "anti-religious rant". I merely saw them as a point of view in a spirited discussion. I know I'm not pro-religious by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a couple of close relatives who are born-again Christians, and knowing them has allowed me to develop a new appreciation for true faith. While I don't always agree what their faith dictates, I will say, to some degree, I am still envious that I don't have what to takes to have that kind of unwavering faith, and the peace of mind that comes with it.
How about we agree that statistically, chances are we'll all end up in hell anyway - I'll bring the mojitos.
Fair enough.
Yummy, yes!
Post a Comment