(03-02-2023 02:20 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-02-2023 01:50 PM)umbluegray Wrote: (03-02-2023 01:42 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-02-2023 01:25 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote: (03-02-2023 01:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: How dare a bearded man wear a dress and simply read for children's hour? But no issue when that same bearded man wear a dress into his corporate office?
Exactly, its not appropriate behavior in front of other people's children.
DUH 
I now see the reason why you state we disagree. Thank you for the discussion.
I would agree that the highly overt sexualization (i.e. twerkers in thongs) *are* a matter of potential government intervention.
In my viewpoint, the display of a bearded man, dressed fully and modestly in a gingham dress, does not cross the rubric of utterly outlandish behavior. Nor a display of sexualization to the extent that requires government intervention.
Thank you for defining that viewpoint for me. As promised, I am not attacking your POV. Its yours. And yes, I now understand why we should agree to disagree on this.
Does your viewpoint run the same to a woman with an enormous chest reading to that group of kids? Or a woman with the same enormous chest when she is not wearing a pure baggy blouse?
If morality is purely subjective then it would be up to each individual to determine right and wrong... moral relativism.
But this would render laws and justice null and void. There must be a standard outside of each individual.
That standard must be either the organization knows as the state or the Being who created the universe and everyone in it.
Deferring the moral standard to government is very dangerous.
Which religious viewpoint is that supreme and better moral standard then?
If that cannot be articulated, then that seemingly does devolve into a subjective basis of morality.
I agree that deferring the standard to the government is dangerous -- highly dangerous. But so is deferring that standard to *any* belief system.
I might differ a tad with your initial formulation bolded above.
Maybe it *is* at the individual level subjective -- yet each individual in chooses to be part of a group or society. And those societies choose to adopt, as a collective and for the greater good, 'community standards'.
To be absolutely fair and upfront, I am agnostic. I cannot tell you 'how and why this universe is.' I am not critical of any individual's faith -- that is theirs. And I accept that they believe that faith. One cannot necessarily argue about matters of individual faith. The concept of faith embeds that, at least for me.
But in that agnostic basis, I have to ask, when the concept of true real morality arises, the question thus becomes 'whose'? How is that 'picked'?
Kind of like 'who picks the non-partisan election district line drawers'.....
The long and short is that the morals embodied in the Old and New testament seem to be a good start. Kind of the 'basics' -- so to speak. Dont kill another, dont steal, -- fantastic start. The concepts of Christianity and the attempt to accept others is good one as well... as are the concepts of Martin Luther with respect to the reformation.
Extending that moral rubric of good ideas and acceptance -- when applied to a guy in a beard wearing a modest dress and reading to kids -- I cannot for the life of me say that that is an utterly and totally bad thing morally.
Not my cup of tea -- but not the moral outrage.
I do think the basis or morality includes an idea of being just with respect to the application of the laws' That is attempting to exclude non-dangerous behavior as much as possible, and the idea of fairness requires a non-vague description of the restriction.
I dont see that in the TN law.
On the opposite side, more than one person has expressed 'screw the possibility of capturing innocent behavior, let them sue to get out of it'.
Honestly, that style of 'fk em and feed em fish' doesnt comport very well with what I would consider 'Christian'.
I understand the points you've made, but I don't necessarily agree.
If government, specifically OUR form of government, is by the people, of the people and for the people then we need to think about what power is actually granted.
Do I as an individual have the right to take your property? Do you have the right to take my property?
I think we would both say no.
On an island of three... you, me and Joe, let's say. Now that we're a group do you and I have the right by majority vote to take Joe's property?
Granted, an authoritarian government has the MIGHT to do what it wants, but that still does not mean what it does is right.
As far as which religious viewpoint is that supreme and better moral standard then... that's not the question given that Christianity was the basis for the government organized by the Founders.
That is a statement of fact. In another country, say somewhere in the Middle East, a government might be established based on Islam.
Neither government is required to forego their foundation because there's disagreement as to which religion has a better moral standard.
The debate about which religion is better, which is worse, which is true, are they all true but simply different paths... that debate is worth having for those who are seekers of truth.
Yes, there are many different religions. We know logically that if A contradicts B, then A and B can't both be true. And we also know there are logical contradictions that impart truth. For example, there is no such thing as a married bachelor.
With multiple religions which have contradictions between them we know the following:
1. It is possible all religions are false, or
2. Not all religions can be true.
Can polytheistic and monotheistic religions both be true? Not rationally, no.
This attribute alone splits all of the worlds religions into contradictory camps.
We can go on from there, but this is a lengthy topic which has been the subject of intense discussion for generations upon generations.
To get to the answer of your question regarding the better moral standard among religions, we would first need to answer the question as to whether or not God exists.
If God does not exist then there really is no objective moral right or wrong. Naturalism/Materialism is all there is. What one man believes is no more correct than what another believes.
Borrowing from the evolutionary idea of survival of the fittest, we could say we need to fight it out to see which views prevail. But that still doesn't make a difference in the vastness of the universe's existence.
What we argue about today dies with us and has no meaning.
Interestingly, on this line of thought there really is no such thing as justice. Adolph Hitler and Mother Teresa are both dead. Neither one faces consequences or reaps rewards for their life actions.
Just rotting corpses who chose different paths because of their own personal moral thoughts.
But there is philosophical and scientific evidence which points to a God.
Which belief better explains reality: God exists or god doesn't exist.
A or B. They can't both be true. And because they contradict each other one of them
must be true.
