The_Dude

where was it that said "thou shall not kill" - the 10 commandments?? (i seriously am not certian since 1) i'm not christian or jewsish 2) i'm not much into religion).

is there a lil subscript by "thou shall not kill" that says "killing is not wrong, murdering is wrong".

whether it is a killing or a murder is depending on whose eyes you are looking thru.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

sportsrule101

i read part of a literal translation Bible, and the way it seemed to me that the hebrew word that is translated kill, in the older translations, from the middle ages like the KJV and other translations, is really needs to be translated murder, as it is the newest translations like NASB, and NIV. It does depend on whos eye you look through, that why america has laws against it, and the Bible if i remember right gives certain paramters for it as well.

__________________
winning isn't everything but
losing isn't anything

geep

You are correct in your assesment of the 10 Commandments. The Bible also says this:

Ecclesiastes 3:1-10
1 There is an appointed time for everything. And there is a time for every event under heaven-- 2 A time to give birth and a time to die; A time to plant and a time to uproot what is planted. 3 A time to kill and a time to heal;

This clearly defines that there are conditions in which killing is appropriate, and could be considered the subscript you refer to. You're right in assuming that the difference between killing and murder is objective. The Koran in this verse, defines killing in terms of believers and non believers:

4.93: And whoever kills a believer intentionally, his punishment is hell;

This also seems to place conditions on killing.

I'm not convinced that there is a conflicting moral code here, religiously speaking.

Kadath

Define murder versus kill. Or better yet, don't split hairs at all.

As for geep, please, don't tell me the Bible doesn't contain contradictions. I don't think anyone can get behind that argument.

__________________
it's quiet in here

The_Dude

so, the 10 commandments says in a broad statement that you should not kill and in the bible, it gives reasons for killing. to me, that's contradiction.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

geep

No, I won't get behind that, either. I just was responding to the Dude's request for subscript. I still am curious about conflicting morals. Give me examples. If religion is not the basis for morals then what is? Is it possible that morals are less a social thing and more of a personal thing?


I think that what I meant to say was it sounds to me more like definition than contradiction.

Kadath

I suppose that depends if you consider morals inherent or enforced. Or more accurately, if you believe human beings are inherently good or have to cling to an established set of rules to avoid robbing and killing one another. There is the obvious fact that most "morality" is ultimately self-serving, e.g. laws against murder because we don't want to get murdered. I would say then that the basis for morals is a desire for self-preservation.

__________________
it's quiet in here

oldman2003

Does GW's bible say "Thou shalt not murder." or "Thou shalt not Kill." If you look in the bible, there is a "." after kill. End of sentence.....

The_Dude

personally, my morals come from what I think is right or what is wrong.

i do a lot of things that are contrary to what a religious moral would say.

depends on the person. for me, this would be false. for you, maybe yes.

i dont need anyone to tell me what i should think/believe.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

geep

I agree that morals are self serving to a point. The pattern seems to break down a bit when some things, such as sexuality, come into the picture. What would be self serving about about morals regarding bestiality? Morals do seem to provide a social blueprint for the advance of humanity as a whole (i.e. bestiality does nothing to continue the human race). I am not making a judgement of my own on bestiality, just using it as an example. Are morals learned?

That is how I think I would define my morals, too. Why do you believe some things are right and some are wrong? Is it based on personal experience? Were you taught these things from birth? Does it have something to do with your interaction with the people around you?

GrumpyCoder

The fact is I want a president with integrity. If he did not live by his beliefs once he was elected he would have no integrity in my eyes...regardless of his religious position.

The_Dude

different scenario. 2 people almost never has the exact same morals. it's all based on his/her interpretation of some event/text/whatever.

if laws are made from morals, whose interpretation do we take?

look @ islam right now. there are a lot of extremists that take "strict constructionist" interpretation of the quran. i have a lot of friends that take the book moderately (if that at all).

there is no way to prove if your morals are more correct that somebody else's.

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

geep

Laws cannot enforce "morality" either. While you and I don't have the exact same morals, we do have some in common. If you think stealing is wrong and so do I, what difference does it make where we derived those morals from? Morals like the above example come in many flavors, many shades. That's usually where the conflict seems to come in. If I think downloading MP3s from the internet is stealing, and you don't, isn't that just an elaboration on the definition of stealing? It doesn't make our morals conflict- just different in definition. Many people look to religion for definition of their morals- not just christianity or western culture. The morals defined by many religions and across different cultures are strikingly similar in their broadest forms, in their basic essence. Where they seem to differ is in their definition more than their basic content. Are the definitions of one more correct than another? I don't know of a measure of correctness that could be used to determine that.

Kadath

Well, I could be cynical and say that people don't want their dog to get nailed by some pervert, but let's address this honestly. In the case of something like beastiality, I would say that "morality" stems from a squeamishness towards something that is considered unhealthy or sociopathic. Lots of things do nothing to advance the human race, such as new brands of cola, yet there is no moral objection to them. I would think morals are rather to prevent the degredation of the human race (i.e., beastiality is a coupling with a lower species).
Morals are enforced by society, so in that regard, they are learned. I don't think human beings come out of the womb with any sense of right and wrong.

__________________
it's quiet in here

The_Dude

and we dont come out of the womb already done something bad either. (sry, had to quip in).

__________________
"Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity." - Darrel K Royal

geep

I agree with both statements, although Dude, that certainly puts you at odds with Christianity, which has an established belief of Original Sin. The debate is a classic- "Are humans intrinsically good or evil". I think we have GREAT propensity for both. What keeps us in check are these learned morals passed on from generation to generation. Do you think religion is the transport of these basic morals? Or, perhaps just one of them? If so what are the others? It seems to me that the more successful religions of the world have a well defined moral code as the hinges of their philosophy (not referring only to Christianity). It also seems to me that perversion of these "religious" morals often leads to great evil.

Kadath

I think religion can be a transport, but societal pressure seems to be a greater one. How are you defining success in terms of religion? Size? Longevity?
Your last thought is right on target with me. Killing in the name of.

__________________
it's quiet in here

geep

I think size would be a measure of success. These organizations seem to point themselves toward size as a goal (conversion of the unbelievers). That might be more of the reason for their success than the morals they possess. I think, personally, that your morals are generated by the significant people and events you come in contact with throughout your life. The basis for your morals develop early, and you refine them as you get older. You look at a situation and filter it through your own "moral codes", changing their definition as the situation demands. Many people develop similar morals through their self-perpetuating nature (i.e. I learned them from my parents and passed them along to my children). The collection of these similar morals generate a "social morality". This social morality seems to be what we try to enforce with laws. Do you believe that laws should reflect morality? Maybe laws are another transport for them? Seems to be a "chicken or egg" type of argument- which came first, rules (laws) or morals?

Kadath

So what are you listing among the successful, and, more to the point, what religions don't have a moral base?
I think that laws are even more a case of societal self-preservation than morals, being that morality is a loose arrangement and laws are pretty hard and fast. We're on the same page so far as the rest of your thoughts go.

__________________
it's quiet in here

geep

Successful religions might be Christianity, Islam and Hinduism (ranked by size according to Adherents.com). Examples of religions without well defined moral codes would be Unitarians (who avoid "dogma"), Paganism (accentuating ritualism over pragmatics) or most types of polytheism. I agree that the purpose of laws is societal self preservation. In my original post on this thread, I stated "Some of us out there would actually LIKE to see morality make a comeback in our "legal" system." Your response was "Equating Christianity with morality is the major flaw in your thinking." If laws and morals promote societal and/or self preservation and morals are learned from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to religion, then discussing morality without religion seems to deny full hearing of the subject. If George Bush derives his morals strictly from his religion, and I derive my morals from my parents and have no religion, then by removing religion from the discussion I have removed the validation of his morals, yet kept mine intact. If morals are a personal function which lend their similarities to society and cannot be judged to be correct, then his source of validation could also not be determined as correct or incorrect. I believe that religion does belong in a discussion of morals, but I agree that religion does not equal morals. If society is to be preserved then morals and laws are the vehicles for this preservation. I believe religion (not just Christianity) has endured partly because it had something to offer to the discussion of morals, but it does NOT monopolize the subject. Should we remove religion from our moral discussion of what we regard legally as right or wrong? Could we and still address these situations fully and honestly? Is tolerance (on either side of the religious issue- Pro or Con) more the question than morals themselves?

Fred181

For almost two centuries non-white males were prohibited from voting in this country. Currently in almost every state in the Union homosexuals are prohibited from getting married. It was only rescently that the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning sodomy were unconstitutional. And that is just here in the United States where freedom exists around every corner... Just because something is morally correct it doesn't mean that it is legal or vice versa.

Back to the original poll. The religious practices of a president really don't concern me as long as they remain outside of the oval office. While I don't have a problem with our president asking (insert your god here) for advice, I don't think that he should be basing this countries actions on his religious beliefs. And to say that only christian beliefs are moral or kind is completely absurd. Have you ever heard of the spanish inquistion, or abortion activists. Every religion/group of people throughout time has had its own violent sects. The Musslim, Buhdist, Jewish, Hindu, etc religions are inherintly no more violent than todays christianity

skinbag

I would like to remind the Bushies of his comment about the "crusade" we are on in the middle east. The statement illustrated profound ignorance, zealotry, or both. He may mean well, but the man is a blind fool.

MacGnG

follow own religion, whatever the religion is shouldn't affect how they work as a president.

Nizzle

Yeah, there should be an option in the poll, "Should not allow their personal religious beliefs to cloud their judgement or direct their actions."

__________________
Nizzle

ctembreull

A few thoughts.

There are only two types of crimes, really. Malum in se (crimes that are wrong in and of themselves), e.g. murder and rape - things that even if there were no law prohibiting them, all would know that they are wrong; and malum prohibitum, things that are wrong because society disallows them, they are prohibited acts. Religion should inform and guide the former. It should have no say whatsoever in the latter.

I understand the need in human beings to believe in something larger than themselves, some overarching purpose and guidance for the world. That's great. But a nation composed of such divergent belief systems as America should never be governed upon the basis of one of those systems. Think on this: if you're an Episcopalian, you're not too likely to be happy in a Catholic theocracy. Nor are you likely to get on at all well as a Catholic in a Muslim theocracy.

I note in this thread a number of people equating religion with morals. Tell me: do you think the priests who molested children were moral people? How about the Rev. Fred Phelps, who openly promotes violence against gays? What about those Christian fundamentalists who bomb abortion clinics and murder the doctors who work there? Are these really moral acts? The list goes on. Religion and its observance are no guarantee of moral behavior, just as lack of religion or failure to observe it is no guarantee of a lack of morals.

And for those who like to crow about 70-odd percent of America being Christian, I will paraphrase a wonderful quote I heard one day. "In a democracy, the many have as much right to suppress the one as the one has to suppress, if he could, the many."

Be religious all you like. But govern as a man, and be brave enough to set your faith aside when considering what's best for America.

__________________
Mac
"If it's nae Scottish, it's crap!

JBX

I voted keep the beliefs he entered with. They made him the person that was elected.

__________________
"Youth and Strength is no match for Age and Treachery"

funbob

Okay folks, the real problem here is not religion, the real problrm is politicians. We have eandered so far away from the framers original intent for govern ment. They saw a system where everyday people went and served, then went back home and went back to work, What we have now is a batch of little political robots. They have no idea what the real world is like, they were raised in glass houses and taught what to do, taught what to say, and taught what to believe. They are religious in thier convictions because it is a necessary element of getting elected.

I recently listened to a deate between the talking political heads on TV, they were saying "Arnold has no political experience, what does he know about government?" Well, I started to think, the men who put together our constitution didnt know jack shit about building the most powerful nation on the earth, and somehow they managed to lat the framework dwon for just that.

My point? Religion plays no role in the life of these puppets we call president, they do and say what they were taught to do and say, they believe in the flavor of the day and that is about as deep as they go. I dont care who you are for, democrat, republican, they are all what I call career politicians. How about electing a guy who has some real beliefs?

prb

Lord help us when Bush finally makes the full conversion to Satanism. Or will we be able to take comfort in reminding ourselves that he is " only being himself and being honest with his beliefs"?

mystmarimatt

Funbob, the problem with that lies in politics itself. If you've ever read "all the king's men" by robert penn warren, it might help you understand what i'm saying. we can't just out of the blue elect someone who's really there to do right and will govern by true beliefs. in essence, we cannot elect someone who is not a career politician, it takes years to really get going in the game, and in order to come to power, almost every politician must make some kind of sacrifice, be it moral, or legislative, in order to move up the food chain, one can start out in politics that way, but through the years, after back alley dealings and forfeited causes, the passion, the respect, the ability to do what they truly set out to do is lost. example: Senator Bob wants to pass a piece of legislature helping little puppies, but in order for it to pass, he must get the support of Senator Joe, for that he must either promise that he will support Joe's proposal to kill orphaned kitties, or promise to help him somewhere down the line. that's just how politics works. and even if you replaced everyone in office now, that kind of operating would still arise. my point is mainly, idealism in politics is a fallacy.

__________________
Words of Wisdom:

If you could really get to know someone and know that they weren't lying to you, then you would know the world was real. Because you could agree on things, you could compare notes. That must be why people get married or make Art. So they'll be able to really know something and not go insane.

funbob

Wow, I never really thought of myself as an idealist. I understand your point, and all that I was saying is we have reaped what we have sown here in this country. Government is too big, too intrusive. Politicians don't care about us; I could go on and on. I follow politics for a living; I have stories (that would make your toes curl) and have written a lot on the subject, none of this is a surprise to me. I know how the political machine works; I know how political candidates are groomed. At the same time, I also know that things have to change.

You make some good points Mystmarimatt, keep it up.

Johnny Rotten

Man, this is why I don't like CNN, Fox News, or even BBC News any more. These kinds of (IMO) very disturbing stories just don't get the attention they deserve.

What's worse is that I can picture a lot of my fellow Americans reading this story, nodding in approval, and turning to the next page.

To answer the topic question, however: I can't expect a President to change his religious views to suit political philosphy. However, if he has extreme religious views (as some say Bush does) than I believe it is important to the State that he follows the will of the people with regards to how their religious beliefs affect political change. He (or she) should not enforce ideology specific to his religious leanings; rather, go to church on Sunday, pray before a meal, and whatever other innocuous tasks there may be. I don't like all this business of altering federal websites to reflect the "philosophy" of the administration. Perhaps it's constituent pandering--but has any other president in recent memory gone to such lengths? Sure, perhaps they have suppressed sensitive information in the interest of national security, but changing documents already made public raises my hackles.

Edit: typo

MacGnG

"God told me to strike...." isn't that their reason too? hmmm.......

XenuHubbard

Aaaargh. The war in Iraq really frustrates me.
Not from a moral point of view, but from a logical and strategical point of view.

Afghanistan was war on terrorism, Iraq is war for terrorism.

Go Bush. Doing what Al-Quaida has failed to do for years.

If God told Bush to strike at Saddam, I have another reason for not being Christian.

__________________
The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me.

"What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

Mojo_PeiPei

I believe the Iraq war was about the "kick ass to scare the shit out of the Arab's domino effect".... At least that's my personal opinion, and I whole heartedly agree with it.

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Nitro

In Germany a while ago a TV anchorman was nearly fired because he said that Bush and Bin Laden share some patterns of thought.
At that time the statement produced a public outcry.
They both claimed to only do the "right" and "natural" thing and of course they got this insight from religious education.

If I now read this new story, I get the same idea as MacGnG.
Maybe the TV Guy wasn't so wrong after all.
If only more people would find Bush's remarks at least a bit frightening.
I would expect an "God told me to..." from the pope but from the president of the United States it makes me think about building a bomb shelter in my garden.

Mojo_PeiPei

Bush is a deeply religious person, and I am fairly certain you guys are taking those remarks out of context. BTW what about religion, more importantly christianity, scares you Liberals?

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Lebell

Gah, start another topic then, Mojo_PeiPei!!!

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Mojo_PeiPei

Thar ye go sire

__________________
To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

Lebell

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

XenuHubbard

Well, my guess is that God told Bush to go after Afghanistan, while Allah told him to go after Iraq.

He listened to both.

__________________
The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me.

"What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000