Do you think the Bible is the only reason we are not killing each other or stealing from each other? You know these things are illegal in non-Christian countries, right?
There is a reason that there is no state religion. Henry VIII used the state religion as a weapon to create his own morality and force it on others. At the time this country was founded, there were well over 200 different brands of Christianity in Europe, each one claiming to be the one and only correct one. And if you talk to a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or countless others, they'd tell you all 200 brands of Christianity were wrong. The Declaration refers to a "Creator" not to "God" or "a god."
This country was meant to accommodate people living according to their conscience. We called it freedom. Government's role was never meant to include defining a moral absolute. Again, see Henry VIII. Government's role was to create a structure in which people could live together freely.
I will agree that the founders did make some assumptions though, which did include the Christian norm from which they came. They assumed a moral society with general consensus on issues like the value of human life and respect for private property. Marxists throw those assumptions out the window, and that makes the discussion much harder. What if the moral consensus of a free people was to grant government the right to define a moral authority? The Founders never considered the possibility of some of what we've seen in the 20th century. There is no easy affirmative answer, even "the Bible."
That was actually John Adams who wrote that in the Treaty of Tripoli. You might notice he is the same author as the previous quote I cited. They were trying to cut a deal with Muslims whose pirates were raiding our ships. It was an act of geopolitics moreso than an accurate representation of his beliefs as he was trying to reassure their ruler that there would be no enmity between the two nations on account of religion.
Consent. That is the moral absolute that is indisputable. It applies to all aspects of our lives and is the basis of all morality.
Right after that or at the same level is truth. There is never justification for lying under any circumstance. Discretionary disclosure is a bit of a gray area, but ultimately the truth will set us all free and that idea transcends ideologies.
The only thing we all need to be in 100% agreement is respecting each other's right to life. Beyond that, most of the rest is semantics.
If an adult consents to be eaten by another adult, should society stand by and allow cannibalism to be practiced? Think I'm being over the top? That was a real thing that happened in Germany.
So what moral absolute would you suggest? If the Bible isn't good enough for you then what do you suggest? Spill the beans smart guy!
Do you think the Bible is the only reason we are not killing each other or stealing from each other? You know these things are illegal in non-Christian countries, right?
There is a reason that there is no state religion. Henry VIII used the state religion as a weapon to create his own morality and force it on others. At the time this country was founded, there were well over 200 different brands of Christianity in Europe, each one claiming to be the one and only correct one. And if you talk to a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu or countless others, they'd tell you all 200 brands of Christianity were wrong. The Declaration refers to a "Creator" not to "God" or "a god."
This country was meant to accommodate people living according to their conscience. We called it freedom. Government's role was never meant to include defining a moral absolute. Again, see Henry VIII. Government's role was to create a structure in which people could live together freely.
I will agree that the founders did make some assumptions though, which did include the Christian norm from which they came. They assumed a moral society with general consensus on issues like the value of human life and respect for private property. Marxists throw those assumptions out the window, and that makes the discussion much harder. What if the moral consensus of a free people was to grant government the right to define a moral authority? The Founders never considered the possibility of some of what we've seen in the 20th century. There is no easy affirmative answer, even "the Bible."
"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -John Adams.
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.” - George Washington
That was actually John Adams who wrote that in the Treaty of Tripoli. You might notice he is the same author as the previous quote I cited. They were trying to cut a deal with Muslims whose pirates were raiding our ships. It was an act of geopolitics moreso than an accurate representation of his beliefs as he was trying to reassure their ruler that there would be no enmity between the two nations on account of religion.
Consent. That is the moral absolute that is indisputable. It applies to all aspects of our lives and is the basis of all morality.
Right after that or at the same level is truth. There is never justification for lying under any circumstance. Discretionary disclosure is a bit of a gray area, but ultimately the truth will set us all free and that idea transcends ideologies.
The only thing we all need to be in 100% agreement is respecting each other's right to life. Beyond that, most of the rest is semantics.
If an adult consents to be eaten by another adult, should society stand by and allow cannibalism to be practiced? Think I'm being over the top? That was a real thing that happened in Germany.
I will grant you that this is a better analog than others probably want to see.
It is an evocative question and that's undeniable. Cannibalism has been practiced through millennia as has homosexuality and bisexuality.
It's absolutely worth thinking about.
Don’t forget about euthanasia.
Pedophilia too. Look at ancient Egypt or even the death of Socrates. Who was fighting against pedophiles and their democratic schemes in his time.