There is morality, and then there is morality. Morality has been a term which has become so politicized that it has become very fuzzy. I believe that morality can exist outside of religious belief. Communism came out of a development of a moral code, and yet it was not religious -- and in fact the Manifesto referred to religion as an opiate. Yet, many communists were very moral. In my mind, morality is principally about the extent to which you allow a set of rules impact how you treat yourself, others, and nature -- the parameters would be aimed at permitting others to have the greatest freedom of thought and action that is possible without harm to others and their possessions.
This type of morality can be completely secular and is derived from a sense of personal pride (in the positive sense) and nobility. There is, on the other hand, another type of morality which is not necessarily dependent upon how we treat others nor is it necessarily tempered by the potential for harm to them or their possessions. This type of morality can be based either upon religion or ideology (including racism). It cannot necessarily be supported by reason, but rather is based upon the perceived declarations of Deity, or, with respect to ideology, the declared truths of doctrine by authority figures or a prejudice supported by a majority of the community. An example of this second type of morality would be conservative Christians' condemnation of homosexuality and same sex marriage. There is little or no evidence social, or otherwise, that homosexuality or same sex marriage has any adverse impact on anyone other than the people involved. Yet, it may legitimately be viewed as a question of morality to a Christian.
I believe that there is a role for religiously inspired morality -- so long as it is not backed by the coercive power of the government. In America, however, we are having problems keeping the religious right from forcing their morality upon everyone. That presents a difficulty for our individual liberty. The democratic arms government are dependant for their power upon the majority of the active voters in their constituency -- it is impossible to prevent the imposition of religiously based morals if we rely upon either the executive branch or the legislative branch to do so. The only arm of the government which can prevent that is the one that is not dependent upon the majority of the active voters -- in other words, the judiciary.
Because of that, the religious right is constantly attacking the judiciary even when the majority of the Supreme Court are conservatives. With a President like Bush with his party in control of congress until 2006 and the neo-conservatives in charge of the media, the only thing protecting us from this type of imposition is the judiciary. Yet, Americans would not have the liberties which we cherish and loudly proclaim we have to the world, but for the judiciary.
Unfortunately, there has to be some agreed upon consensus in our civil society for determining morality other than the morality imposed by law which prevents us from doing harm to others or their possession, If we are looking for a non-religious base for an ethical system or morality, I believe the best base for developing such a system lies within nature. Gore in the book he wrote before becoming VP called for a new organizing principle to replace our parents organizing principle of defeating communism, he suggested that new organizing principle be based around the environment and environmentalism. I feel strongly that he was on the right track -- the problem with Gore is that he is too intelligent for the average American. But he and people like the Transcendentalists and conservationists like Aldo Leopold were on the right track -- but such attempts at developing that type of morality keep getting derailed by arrogant greed.
True morality cannot be based upon fear, it must be based upon respect for oneself, for others, for the Creation, and, for believers, God. But, not all morality need be based upon respect for God. Respect for God may not be directly imposed by humankind upon humankind in a free country that believes in liberty (at least not directly)-- respect for others and for Creation can be so imposed. That respect can be imposed indirectly by requiring others to be respectful of others beliefs and where appropriate by accomodating the beliefs of others.
Some people actually believe God exists, not as some indefinable gaseous substance that is everywhere, but nowhere in particular. For such people, which includes myself, there exists a moral code governing how they should behave. This is fine, so long as we do not attempt to impose the portions of that code which deal strictly with our relationship with God on other people, or cause other people to suffer because of that code. There is nothing wrong with having such a moral code. In fact, to the extent possible and appropriate, we should show respect for the beliefs of others. Obviously, if an individual or a group is condemned by such a code, then they should not feel compelled to show respect for such beliefs. Nobody expects minorities who fall on the wrong side of a religiously induced moral code such as may be the case for gays or racial minorities should be expected to have respect for such moral codes.
True morality cannot be based upon fear, it must be based upon respect for oneself, for others, for the Creation, and, for the believer, God. Not all morality need be based upon respect for God. But it must be based upon respect for the beliefs of others. For example, right now our Pledge of Allegiance is disrespectful -- it used to be respectful, but it was altered in 1951. During an era of flagerant disrespect for the beliefs and privacy of others, the McCarthy Era, the words "under God" were added to the pledge as a form of quasi-fascist litmus test to determine whether someone was a communist. Why would a Christian such as myself say it is disrespectful? It is disrespectful because it implies that an atheist, or someone whose religion is not comfortable with the phrase, cannot be patriotic. I know plenty of atheists and people whose religion is uncomfortable with the phrase who are patriotic. We do not show respect for them by making it impossible for them to recite the Pledge at gatherings -- would God be offended if we took it out? Well, I don't think mine would be.
In the final analysis, I do not believe that religiously inspired morality can or should be legislated by a government claiming to govern a free land. I do, however, believe the religion has a role to play in individual behavior and religiously inspired morality is a part of every culture and is important in a culture's survival.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 13
Just to play devils advocate, I would say that America has a problem in that the left try to take God out of everything, pretending that this country was not founded on Christianity, and they do so to the detriment of our country. I am all for freedom and have absolutely no problem with people practicing whatever faith they choose, but they must also respect that Christianity is the major religion practiced in America and as such, public displays and expressions of religion should not be banned.
Don H.: While I totally agree with you that this whole religion thing has been blown way out of proportion. There is nothing wrong with children singing Christmas Carols, displays that include nativites, etc. The world won't end tomorrow if a non-believer or a person of another religion hears the phrase "Merry Christmas." As long as the free expression of all religions is allowed then Christianity certainly is also allowed.
On the other hand, some expressions of religion need to be disallowed such as public prayers at public events that are not by definition religious events or the display of religious icons in government buildings.
Personally I would be thrilled out of my shorts if I never heard another reference to Kwanzaa, but that's not my call to make.
Please. Silly statement.
"There are no exceptions to thou shalt not kill"
Gee, Dave... if we take everything at face value, then you should not eat any meat or step on insects. And no defending yourself in the case where someone is trying to kill you. Anywho, open your mind to killing... it's not always that bad ;)
and you better believe in him my way or I'll kill you.~~~~
You can get the itemized list of the do's and don't from Moses, but,
The "do unto others" thing pretty much covers all the bases.
Dave, I have to disagree with you that Christ did not make any exceptions to the commandment "Thou Shalt Not Kill." There is too much in the Christian scriptures which suggest otherwise -- although I do agree that it would condemn indiscriminate killing of civilians during war time. This is an example of how even within Christianity there is disagreement regarding moral standards. Many Christians believe their beliefs oppose capitol punishment, other Christians believe that under certain circumstances it is mandatory. As a result, the case for or against capitol punishment has to be made on non-religious grounds.
Carolyn, I agree with your comment.
Oran, I agree that with you that Christian Americans should have greater reservations about the doctrine of preemptive warfare, which being translated means, do unto others before they do unto you and do it on a massive scale. But, you do not have to base the objection on religion, there are perfectly legitimate secular reasons against the doctrine of pre-emptive warfare by the world's only military super-power.