Sandi Toksvig v Justin Welby

[Fab Foodie]

Welby is trying to do the impossible.
What is so wrong with having a split in the Anglican world? The more progressive and pragmatic 'C of E' style Anglicanism and the 'Homophobic' Anglicanism?
After all, the history of Religion is full of schism. Vive la difference!

Oh, of course, money, power, influence, trumps kindness, equality, inclusiveness, diversity etc....

 

[mudsticks]

And it's incredibly arrogant to suggest that without Christianity, we would have no moral codes.

It discounts the validity of many of the other religious, spiritual and ethical systems of belief, and thought, to be found around the world .
Many of which were in place long before Christianity arrived.


The basic tenet of avoid harm to oneself, avoid harm to others wherever possible.
Be as good an actor in the world, as you can possibly be
Is pretty fundamental to any ethical code around the world.

And now we've got international laws and international human rights that are (supposed to) flow from those too.
It's almost like we've evolved as humans.

The fact that these rights are not always observed , isn't down to an absence of religion, it's down to an absence of humanity .

Inhumanity is very often excused by religion, or tradition.

Violence aggression or abuse, against those of the 'wrong' or no religion, by allegedly religious people has a long and inglorious history.

 

[cookiemonster]

Some of the nastiest and immoral people in the planet all claim to be 'Christian.'

I wonder what Jesus would say about that?

 

[mudsticks]

Some of the nastiest and immoral people in the planet all claim to be 'Christian.'

I wonder what Jesus would say about that?

I think he would be a bit dissapointed...

 

[newfhouse]

Which comes first, homophobia (or insert bigotry of choice) or belief in a higher power that just happens to justify it?

 

[mudsticks]

Which comes first, homophobia (or insert bigotry of choice) or belief in a higher power that just happens to justify it?

Can I add in Patriachy , big stylee into that .



Aggression, violence, ego, exploitation..



I'm not going to make myself popular here by saying this, but these are very male orientated traits..



And are routinely Justified / excused / used by any system of belief that says men should be able to control or keep down women.

 

[AuroraSaab]

Most moral codes have their origin in what is good for the group, with primacy being given to what is good for men.

Whilst we see these codes as coming from religion, I don't think any of this would have been any different if religion didn't exist. The fact that most faiths, initially anyway, had similar rules suggests it's more a human nature thing. Control people, protect the clan, control women ..... it's the same in all societies. Was it any easier being gay in Communist China in the 1950's than in Catholic South America?

Thing is, we are now 3,000 years on from the foundation of the first organised faiths and many of those 'concerns' no longer apply. We don't need to force marriage at 12 to ensure lots of children are born etc. because we don't die at 40 anymore. Societies change and morality changes with them. What served communities well centuries ago, no longer serve us well. We've quite rightly moved from what is good for society, regardless of individual feelings, to a morality that mostly encompasses individual rights and the wider greater good. I think most religious people see it like that too; they mostly don't hark for Biblical morality or Shariah law.

(Edited for length)

 

[BoldonLad]

Most moral codes have their origin in what is good for the group, with primacy being given to what is good for men.

Whilst we see these codes as coming from religion, I don't think any of this would have been any different if religion didn't exist. The fact that most faiths, initially anyway, had similar rules suggests it's more a human nature thing. Control people, protect the clan, control women ..... it's the same in all societies. Was it any easier being gay in Communist China in the 1950's than in Catholic South America?

Thing is, we are now 3,000 years on from the foundation of the first organised faiths and many of those 'concerns' no longer apply. We don't need to force marriage at 12 to ensure lots of children are born etc. because we don't die at 40 anymore. Societies change and morality changes with them. What served communities well centuries ago, no longer serve us well. We've quite rightly moved from what is good for society, regardless of individual feelings, to a morality that mostly encompasses individual rights and the wider greater good. I think most religious people see it like that too; they mostly don't hark for Biblical morality or Shariah law.

(Edited for length)

While not disagreeing fundamentally...

It may be approximately 3000 years on from the foundation of the first organised faiths (I will take your word for that), but, human beings have been around for a lot longer than that (50,000 year plus, although, I wouldn't argue over the odd few thousand years, who knows?). If you don't believe in God (any god), which I don't then, we are simply sophisticated apes, and, our "civilisation" has developed from there. The various religions have been and are simply a method for one group (ie the Religious Leaders) to gain ascendency over the rest of us. This is not (IMHO) an excuse for uncivilised behaviour, we are pretty smart animals, and should be able to organise ourselves to everyones best advantage, without the need for the various shades of religious organisations and their hangers on.

 

[Rusty Nails]

You then have an amoral universe.

Morals derive from society, whether that society is Christian, Muslim, Sun-worshipping or secular.

Societies choose and make their religion in line with their own sense of morality.

I have no issue at all with people having faith in their god, as long as they believe that god is benevolent, but faith is not fact.

 

[AuroraSaab]

You're quite right, BL. I should have said monotheistic religions. Animism and polytheism are older of course.

I think the original of moral codes lies in what was good for the first organised societies - when we were first starting to live in groups, choose leaders etc. Stone Age times, I suppose. If religion hadn't developed I still think the same moral codes would have developed because they were useful initially to regulate behaviour and help the clan to survive. We don't need some of them now.

I think we are hard wired to do good. 'Doing good' usually means doing things that are good for the clan - cooperating, helping each other. Perhaps it's why our humans thrived and the Neanderthals didn't. I think religion just codified these behaviours.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I'm not going to make myself popular here by saying this, but these are very male orientated traits..

True, but less so when women get into positions of power, like Truss, Braverman, Patel, Dorries etc.

If the day ever comes when the patriarchy disappears there will be just as many nasty people about and just as much aggression, violence, ego, exploitation in the world, and religion will still be as divisive.

 

[mudsticks]

True, but less so when women get into positions of power, like Truss, Braverman, Patel, Dorries etc.

If the day ever comes when the patriarchy disappears there will be just as many nasty people about and just as much aggression, violence, ego, exploitation in the world, and religion will still be as divisive.

Just compliant, water carriers for the same system .

They wouldn't have got to where they are without going along with the 'might is right' system of hierachy, greed, and exploitation.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Just compliant, water carriers for the same system .

They wouldn't have got to where they are without going along with the 'might is right' system of hierachy, greed, and exploitation.

We will never know until the system of hierarchy changes, and then it will be too late to be concerned about which of us is right. The Trusses and Patels of this world will still be as dangerous, but there will be more of them.

 

[mudsticks]

We will never know until the system of hierarchy changes, and then it will be too late to be concerned about which of us is right. The Trusses and Patels of this world will still be as dangerous, but there will be more of them.

Well not nessecelery..

If there's not such a dominating patriachal system to carry water for .

I'm reminded of this ...

The problem that many people seem to have with the idea of feminism, is that they think that with true equality women would want to have the right to treat men, with as much disregard as men have traditionally felt they've had the right to treat women ..

 

[Rusty Nails]

Well not nessecelery..

If there's not such a dominating patriachal system to carry water for .o

I'm reminded of this ...

The problem that many people seem to have with the idea of feminism, is that they think that with true equality women would want to have the right to treat men, with as much disregard as men have traditionally felt they've had the right to treat women ..

I am much more cynical than you and believe that eventually with true equality (many) women would treat men, with as much/little disregard as (many) men have traditionally treated women. Nothing wrong with that, it's true equality as opportunity arises and the species evolves.
I do not believe that either sex is intrinsically more saintly/evil than the other, but men's physical strength difference has made it easier for them in the past, when that was more important, and when society was even less enlightened.