Discourse

Got a thought-provoking response regarding my post on religion and human rights: I believe morality is rooted in religion and without religion (even traces of it) we cease to become that which God has intended. Ok, I’m not sure if that makes sense to everyone but let me try to explain. I had a buddy that moved in with his girlfriend. His parents who where atheists (or at least non-observing of any religion that I could see) were appalled at the idea of living together prior to marriage and berated my buddy and his girlfriend until she was in tears and only let up after they left the parents house. Now, upon what did his parents base their rejection? They certainly held no religious conviction on which to base their rejection and indeed their reaction only cemented in my mind their lack of religious observance. I have concluded over the years that they based the situation off of a secular or civic "norm". The unfortunate consequence to this is that the secular "norms" have a habit of "creeping" from their original meaning (moral relativism?). In regards to "Gods Law" I believe the respondent was referring to the Bible as the written form of "God’s Law" and therefore the ultimate expression of law. Even if Christians and Jews are wrong and the Bible was written by "crazy" Semites and Greeks that wanted to deceive others the Bible still holds a position of being created or inspired by a "superior" being, an thereby has authority. An example of this can be seen in my children, my youngest refuses to listen to my oldest child even though the oldest 7 years his elder and has greater knowledge. However he will follow the rules that I lay down for them both, I have authority or them both. My children are peers and I am their parent. In Christianity we are all children of God (believer and non-believer). The believer acknowledges that law has it’s beginnings with God. The non-believer in my experience believes that all law was created by man and therefore subject to interpretation or creeping/moral relativism. 100 years ago stealing a horse was punishable by death. Today a man that just recently severely injured an acquaintance of mine and killed his wife will most likely live the rest of his life in relative comfort in jail. For us today that solution is the norm, to someone 100 years ago our solution may seem like insanity. BTW, the Bible refers to abortion in Exodus Chapter 21 verse 22. New International Version: "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely [e] but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. 23 But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Does it specifically discuss a woman intentionally aborting her fetus, no it does not. However the Bible deals with intentional killing in Exodus Chapter 21 verses 12 through 14. Also, New International Version: "Anyone who strikes a man and kills him shall surely be put to death. 13 However, if he does not do it intentionally, but God lets it happen, he is to flee to a place I will designate. 14 But if a man schemes and kills another man deliberately, take him away from my altar and put him to death." I’ve already told you the most important law. "Treat others the way you want to be treated". This works well when applied to getting along with your co-worker or interacting with another human being but if your goal is to clean up your neighborhood so that your child can safely walk to school you’re probably going to have to take a different approach. Your thoughts? My Response: I absolutely agree with "Do onto others…" being the most important law. My point being, however, that there is no reliance on any religious theology for this law to be applicable - it works just as fluidly in secular communalism as is does in religious theology. Not sure if you read all of the links buried in the first article I linked, but those articles state that religion is required to adequately address and be sensitive to human rights issues. The purpose of the post I made was to examine this question, and to try to determine if that was true or not. The conclusion I reached is that it is not necessarily true. Does this help to clarify my position?