On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 16:07:50 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

In OT - A test for Gunner & Stu & crew on Thu, 01 Sep 2005
06:41:42 -0400, by Cliff, we read:

On Thu, 01 Sep 2005 03:49:32 GMT, Strabo
wrote:

In OT - A test for Gunner & Stu & crew on Wed, 31 Aug 2005
12:33:11 -0700, by Hawke, we read:

Morality is derived from religion, but can exist separate from it.

No, that's not quite right. Morality existed before the coming of any
organized religion. It is an intrinsic trait in man so it always existed
apart from religion. Religions have just appropriated it to increase their
power and control the masses.

Hawke

As I agree with natural law I agree with you that morality is
intrinsic. Every man knows the essentials of right and wrong
even if never exposed to a religion. Man's moral nature
occurred BEFORE religion and not as a result of it.

Absolute rubbish.
"Morality" is a social peer-pressure thing and
can vary quite widely.

In part.

In whole.
Don't confuse it with ethics.

It's derived, mostly, from the religion context ...
religions dictate what local "morality" is. And,
depending on your class can vary as well.

So, you believe that where there is no religion there
are no morals.

Who dictates them?

But then you believe that no society
exists without a religion.

Did I state that?

In other words, "in the beginning there was
fill-in-favorite-religion."

Superstitions are VERY popular.
Somone else can be balmed.
And be claimed to be the power behind the
real rulers.

Then perhaps you believe that only those who initially invent
a religion experience 'revelation' and are thus allowed
to determine morals.

Huh?

I think otherwise.

The feral child soon understands the concepts of
death and theft - his death - his food.

What has that to do with morality?
Or your presumed "man's moral nature", which
assumes one universal set of claims about "morality"?

All he
needs next is to relate his potential loss with
the plight of others. This empathy is the basis of morality.

Nope.
By that standard all wingers & fundies are immoral, right?

No religion needed. Survival is after all an entirely personal
matter.

Nope. It's cultural too.

The proof is found in the many examples of primitive societies
that have no expansive or formalized notion of religion as its
known in the West.

What has "as it's known in the West" to do with anything?
Are only folks like Robertson & Falwell moral?

Example: If you are a ruler like the shrubbie
you can indeed lie & murder.

It is this intrinsic awareness that prompted Jefferson to say,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal..."

Rubbish. It SOUNDED good & sold.

It is good and solid.

Nope.
Try deducing it ...... G.

Having said that, while religion is unabashedly used to control
behavior, in its simplest form it IS the repository of the values
of the society which invented the religion. Therefore, one can
learn morality from religion.

snort

Think of all the rights those preachers want to remove ....
and recall how things used to be with the full support
of various preachers .... and will be again if they are
allowed the power again.
Beware bush & his voices .... perhaps burning is involved?

There can be a religion constructed around libertarianism
and the Bill of Rights.

Where's gummer?

The problem is that it would be
soon perverted, the weakness of all religion.

Reminds me of gummer.

http://whitehouse.org/dof/index.asp
http://whitehouse.org/initiatives/index.asp
http://whitehouse.org/policy/commandments.asp

--
Cliff