Yeah, here is the religion of peace making one of their moral judgements....
Posted on 10/31/2006 6:13:36 AM PST by Mobile Vulgus
The Times sets their premise quite straightforwardly with their very first sentence in a recent discussion of a new theory on the source of morals being promulgated by Harvard biologist, Marc D. Hauser.
Who doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong? Yet that essential knowledge, generally assumed to come from parental teaching or religious or legal instruction, could turn out to have a quite different origin.What follows is several slaps at religion, the Times asserting that religion has nothing to do with morals short of serving as "social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior".
But the Times seems not to understand the entire point of morals and the claims religions make about them. Few religions claim to have created morals by their practices and tenets but are merely re-enforcing what God has already given us. So, contrary to what the Times assumes, no religion, Christian ones especially, claims to have somehow invented morals with their religious ideals. They attribute creation of such to God.
But in several instances the Times' discussion seems to assume that religions are claiming to have created morals.
The proposal, if true, would have far-reaching consequences. It implies that parents and teachers are not teaching children the rules of correct behavior from scratch but are, at best, giving shape to an innate behavior. And it suggests that religions are not the source of moral codes but, rather, social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.So, in essence, Dr. Hauser is buttressing the argument that a natural sense of right and wrong exists, hard-wired into our brains and that would, of necessity, lead to a set of natural laws and natural rights to accompany them.
Both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the same moral judgments, Dr. Hauser writes, implying "that the system that unconsciously generates moral judgments is immune to religious doctrine."
This would tend to eliminate the kind of prosaic post-modern, everything is relative thinking upon which so much leftist thought is based as a common refrain from the left is that one man's morals isn't necessarily anyone else's.
Further, this new theory would tend to confirm the claim that man is special and stands at a higher level than the animals which also tends to lay waste to so many assumptions of modern leftism. Don't tell PETA, for instance, that men have a higher moral code than animals. Social animals, he believes, possess the rudiments of a moral system in that they can recognize cheating or deviations from expected behavior. But they generally lack the psychological mechanisms on which the pervasive reciprocity of human society is based... In any case, it is amusing to me that the Times seems to feel it has discovered this "truth" that morals are not created by religions... even as no religion claims they are.
And, still, the point of what is instilled in us by God is not refuted by this theory at all. After all, if this natural moral sense is hard-wired into us, why isn't it as easy to say God instilled them into us as it is to say evolution did so?
So, as the Times raced to say religion has nothing to do with morals, they did not end up really definitively proving anything despite their claims.
And, it is funny how they mention how religion is laid low by this theory, but ignore how many leftist ideals are similarly destroyed, as well. The Times is ready to declare God dead... but what about leftism?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
This is so obviously untrue.
Then this mouthpiece for the Democrat Party wonders why Christians don't believe the charade that liberal Democrats have the same values as Christians.
Dr. Hauser is a blithering idiot. It is quite clear from our fairly recently experiences with the Khmer Rouge or Muslims or inner-city gangs that there is no moral code built into humans.
I advise the New York Times to re-read its own historical record on the subject of human morality and then take a gander at Arthur Allen Leff's essays on the subject.
It's not as if the Catholic Church has ever taught that the law of God is written in our inmost hearts and consciences or that there is a natural law. No, that would stand in the way of the liberals' one dimensional religious straw demon.
Close but I think it should read either 'worship liberals' or 'worship government'.
bump
Of course none of them would consider reading Romans 1:18 and following.
*Just remembered that the root of "enthusiasm" means "in God" (as in ecstatically entranced).
14And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
15To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
16These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
17But, beloved, remember ye the words which were spoken before of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ;
18How that they told you there should be mockers in the last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
19These be they who separate themselves, sensual, having not the Spirit. - Jude 1:14-19
Sounds kinda like God is the judge of what is moral. He will not accept the twisted morality of the depraved as truth.
This is by no means a new theory. See for example Lawrence Kohlberg, Abe Maslow and numerous others.
Conservatives believe in GOD
NY liberal Slimes believes they are God !
Yeah, here is the religion of peace making one of their moral judgements....
Later Moral Absolutes pingout.
Anyone who gets their religious and/or moral instruction from the NY Times has already received their reward.
"I guess the left is trying to say that atheists are good people too and that they have morals too (even if no one knows what they are)"
Well, I don't believe you should do violence to other people or their property. That's one moral this atheist has. I also believe discarding rationality for superstition is immoral. You can freepmail me if you want more.
So, the NYT is saying that, for example, revulsion at homosexual acts is normal, hereditary and instinctual?
MORALITY:
Either some basic standard of morality is programmed into innate human consciousness, or it is not.
If it is not, then morality is relative -- and therefore there can be no absolute standards of right and wrong. But this would prevent "moral outrage" at crime and antisocial behavior, and what would the godless then do with their indignation against "intolerance" or their other cardinal sins? Also, how will they persuade people to believe that men do not know within themselves that it is inherently wrong to do murder?
If it is, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and the essential premise of natural law is established. These standards must have come from somewhere outside ourselves, and thus a key premise of theology is established as well.
But either one of these conclusions will destroy the foundations of godless modern liberalism.
HOMOSEXUALITY:
Either a bias toward homosexual behavior is innate in some humans, or it is not.
If it is, then this bias can be diagnosed, evaluated, and treated as a disease, similar to other abnormal predispositions -- e.g., toward drunkenness (which we call alcoholism) or toward theft (kleptomania).
If it is not, then homosexual behavior results from some combination of choice and environment. If this is the case, then choices can be reversed and environmental factors (e.g., childhood abuse) can be compensated for. And thus homosexuality can be unlearned and abandoned.
But either one of these conclusions will destroy the blind religion of homosexuality.
Rom 1:18 ¶ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them.
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in [their] knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.