The Cost of Relativism (1 Viewer)

[The Commish]

Thoughts??

While reading this, a couple FFA threads came to mind. Namely the "Liberals against Islam" thread where we were discussing hesitence to call out "Radical Islam" though I see it in many other threads where we tip toe around events because we don't want to "judge" or "call out" problems in the name of political correctness.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I think there's a big difference between calling out the ills of our society (divorce, poverty, drugs, crime) and calling out the ills of "radical Islam" (beheading, stoning, rape, murder, and torture).

 

[rockaction]

While I appreciate the effort, the op-ed bespeaks who he's writing for, and what paper he's writing in. It's the least judgmental white paper in existence. I mean, Daniel Patrick Moynihan was saying this stuff since 1964. There's no need to couch this in any sort of terms that are revolutionary or that need explanation in an entire op-ed. As Indianapolis might say: We do this every day here.

This was also done in Charles Murray's "The Underclass" a bunch of years back, if I'm not mistaken.

Brooks is right, but his pressing of the issue is hardly novel.

My two cents.

eta* Thanks for the post, though. I wouldn't have known Brooks was taking this tack if not for your info.

 

[The Commish]

Given the dynamic and state of affairs of our society is it "positive" that he's bringing up something that's been presented as an issue for all that time? To me, it's relatively depressing to know these kinds of things are going on as we watch society deteriorate in front of our eyes. I didn't suspect that this was the first time this position had been taken. I didn't post it because I felt it novel. I posted it because I thought there was some truth to it, regardless of who came up with it.

 

[rockaction]

Given the dynamic and state of affairs of our society is it "positive" that he's bringing up something that's been presented as an issue for all that time? To me, it's relatively depressing to know these kinds of things are going on as we watch society deteriorate in front of our eyes. I didn't suspect that this was the first time this position had been taken. I didn't post it because I felt it novel. I posted it because I thought there was some truth to it, regardless of who came up with it.

No, it's not positive, and this is exactly correct. I wasn't criticizing your post at all, I was criticizing the state of his readership and society more than anything else. That he feels a need to write about this in '15 shows how far we've gone down the path.

 

[matuski]

Skipped through a lot of it, I am glad he isn't calling for religion to establish the standards he wishes to see.

 

[The Commish]

Given the dynamic and state of affairs of our society is it "positive" that he's bringing up something that's been presented as an issue for all that time? To me, it's relatively depressing to know these kinds of things are going on as we watch society deteriorate in front of our eyes. I didn't suspect that this was the first time this position had been taken. I didn't post it because I felt it novel. I posted it because I thought there was some truth to it, regardless of who came up with it.

No, it's not positive, and this is exactly correct. I wasn't criticizing your post at all, I was criticizing the state of his readership and society more than anything else. That he feels a need to write about this in '15 shows how far we've gone down the path.

This is the first I've read of him. I've probably heard him on NPR and not realized it. Honestly, it's the first I've ever heard the name. I don't know who the guy is. He does speak to a core issue in our society. For whatever reason, secularism isn't getting it done. I'm not sure why we keep going down that path. Probably because there isn't an alternative (at least on the more global/broad level).

 

[The Commish]

And why do we go out of our way to generalize and lump people into categories, making excuses for why they do what they do instead of taking them to task for the actions they are willfully taking?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Given the dynamic and state of affairs of our society is it "positive" that he's bringing up something that's been presented as an issue for all that time? To me, it's relatively depressing to know these kinds of things are going on as we watch society deteriorate in front of our eyes. I didn't suspect that this was the first time this position had been taken. I didn't post it because I felt it novel. I posted it because I thought there was some truth to it, regardless of who came up with it.

No, it's not positive, and this is exactly correct. I wasn't criticizing your post at all, I was criticizing the state of his readership and society more than anything else. That he feels a need to write about this in '15 shows how far we've gone down the path.

This is the first I've read of him. I've probably heard him on NPR and not realized it. Honestly, it's the first I've ever heard the name. I don't know who the guy is. He does speak to a core issue in our society. For whatever reason, secularism isn't getting it done. I'm not sure why we keep going down that path. Probably because there isn't an alternative (at least on the more global/broad level).

Huh?

 

[wikkidpissah]

Brooks has been by far the best columnist around recently. He's been writing about morality and ethics far more than about politics the last coupla yrs and has been leading a search for the New Decency we're going to need to begin to reign in the social chaos that's hurtling beyond all control.

 

[cstu]

My cost is having to fly back to Iowa for Christmas.

 

[cstu]

And why do we go out of our way to generalize and lump people into categories, making excuses for why they do what they do instead of taking them to task for the actions they are willfully taking?

I agree, Pats fans are #######s and should be told so.

 

[The Commish]

Given the dynamic and state of affairs of our society is it "positive" that he's bringing up something that's been presented as an issue for all that time? To me, it's relatively depressing to know these kinds of things are going on as we watch society deteriorate in front of our eyes. I didn't suspect that this was the first time this position had been taken. I didn't post it because I felt it novel. I posted it because I thought there was some truth to it, regardless of who came up with it.

No, it's not positive, and this is exactly correct. I wasn't criticizing your post at all, I was criticizing the state of his readership and society more than anything else. That he feels a need to write about this in '15 shows how far we've gone down the path.

This is the first I've read of him. I've probably heard him on NPR and not realized it. Honestly, it's the first I've ever heard the name. I don't know who the guy is. He does speak to a core issue in our society. For whatever reason, secularism isn't getting it done. I'm not sure why we keep going down that path. Probably because there isn't an alternative (at least on the more global/broad level).

Huh?

Do you disagree? I don't think it's gotten better. As a matter of fact, I think the world of political correctness, so as not to offend, has made it worse.

 

[The Commish]

Brooks has been by far the best columnist around recently. He's been writing about morality and ethics far more than about politics the last coupla yrs and has been leading a search for the New Decency we're going to need to begin to reign in the social chaos that's hurtling beyond all control.

Well, I'm glad I stumbled across him then. He certainly brings up some pretty good points in his various writings.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Given the dynamic and state of affairs of our society is it "positive" that he's bringing up something that's been presented as an issue for all that time? To me, it's relatively depressing to know these kinds of things are going on as we watch society deteriorate in front of our eyes. I didn't suspect that this was the first time this position had been taken. I didn't post it because I felt it novel. I posted it because I thought there was some truth to it, regardless of who came up with it.

No, it's not positive, and this is exactly correct. I wasn't criticizing your post at all, I was criticizing the state of his readership and society more than anything else. That he feels a need to write about this in '15 shows how far we've gone down the path.

This is the first I've read of him. I've probably heard him on NPR and not realized it. Honestly, it's the first I've ever heard the name. I don't know who the guy is. He does speak to a core issue in our society. For whatever reason, secularism isn't getting it done. I'm not sure why we keep going down that path. Probably because there isn't an alternative (at least on the more global/broad level).

Huh?

Do you disagree? I don't think it's gotten better. As a matter of fact, I think the world of political correctness, so as not to offend, has made it worse.

Are you suggesting that the world is spinning out of control, and ours is the last great generation, blah, blah, blah? All the things EVERY generation says. And, that it is BECAUSE of a trend towards secularism?

 

[The Commish]

Given the dynamic and state of affairs of our society is it "positive" that he's bringing up something that's been presented as an issue for all that time? To me, it's relatively depressing to know these kinds of things are going on as we watch society deteriorate in front of our eyes. I didn't suspect that this was the first time this position had been taken. I didn't post it because I felt it novel. I posted it because I thought there was some truth to it, regardless of who came up with it.

No, it's not positive, and this is exactly correct. I wasn't criticizing your post at all, I was criticizing the state of his readership and society more than anything else. That he feels a need to write about this in '15 shows how far we've gone down the path.

This is the first I've read of him. I've probably heard him on NPR and not realized it. Honestly, it's the first I've ever heard the name. I don't know who the guy is. He does speak to a core issue in our society. For whatever reason, secularism isn't getting it done. I'm not sure why we keep going down that path. Probably because there isn't an alternative (at least on the more global/broad level).

Huh?

Do you disagree? I don't think it's gotten better. As a matter of fact, I think the world of political correctness, so as not to offend, has made it worse.

Are you suggesting that the world is spinning out of control, and ours is the last great generation, blah, blah, blah? All the things EVERY generation says. And, that it is BECAUSE of a trend towards secularism?

It's not spinning out of control significantly more than usual IMO. But I believe we are allowing it to be more out of control than it has to be by taking this "we can't offend anyone by telling them what they are doing is wrong" nonsense. It's political correctness run amuck IMO. The other thing I've noticed in my life is that there's this increasing inability to live in a world where people disagree with them. Why can't we have things where people agree to disagree anymore and be comfortable/confident in our own opinions without needing validation from everyone else? Where has self esteem gone?

 

[CowboysFromHell]

Given the dynamic and state of affairs of our society is it "positive" that he's bringing up something that's been presented as an issue for all that time? To me, it's relatively depressing to know these kinds of things are going on as we watch society deteriorate in front of our eyes. I didn't suspect that this was the first time this position had been taken. I didn't post it because I felt it novel. I posted it because I thought there was some truth to it, regardless of who came up with it.

No, it's not positive, and this is exactly correct. I wasn't criticizing your post at all, I was criticizing the state of his readership and society more than anything else. That he feels a need to write about this in '15 shows how far we've gone down the path.

This is the first I've read of him. I've probably heard him on NPR and not realized it. Honestly, it's the first I've ever heard the name. I don't know who the guy is. He does speak to a core issue in our society. For whatever reason, secularism isn't getting it done. I'm not sure why we keep going down that path. Probably because there isn't an alternative (at least on the more global/broad level).

Huh?

Do you disagree? I don't think it's gotten better. As a matter of fact, I think the world of political correctness, so as not to offend, has made it worse.

Are you suggesting that the world is spinning out of control, and ours is the last great generation, blah, blah, blah? All the things EVERY generation says. And, that it is BECAUSE of a trend towards secularism?

It's not spinning out of control significantly more than usual IMO. But I believe we are allowing it to be more out of control than it has to be by taking this "we can't offend anyone by telling them what they are doing is wrong" nonsense. It's political correctness run amuck IMO. The other thing I've noticed in my life is that there's this increasing inability to live in a world where people disagree with them. Why can't we have things where people agree to disagree anymore and be comfortable/confident in our own opinions without needing validation from everyone else? Where has self esteem gone?

OK, but what does all of that have to do with secularism?

 

[roadkill1292]

Society isn't deteriorating before our eyes. We're living in the best time in history.

 

[trogg78]

And why do we go out of our way to generalize and lump people into categories, making excuses for why they do what they do instead of taking them to task for the actions they are willfully taking?

I agree, Pats fans are #######s and should be told so.

I don't know about the rest of the Pats fans, but PatriotJohn is really great guy.

 

[Tackling Dummies]

And why do we go out of our way to generalize and lump people into categories, making excuses for why they do what they do instead of taking them to task for the actions they are willfully taking?

I agree, Pats fans are #######s and should be told so.

Let's agree that you're wrong.

 

[The Commish]

Given the dynamic and state of affairs of our society is it "positive" that he's bringing up something that's been presented as an issue for all that time? To me, it's relatively depressing to know these kinds of things are going on as we watch society deteriorate in front of our eyes. I didn't suspect that this was the first time this position had been taken. I didn't post it because I felt it novel. I posted it because I thought there was some truth to it, regardless of who came up with it.

No, it's not positive, and this is exactly correct. I wasn't criticizing your post at all, I was criticizing the state of his readership and society more than anything else. That he feels a need to write about this in '15 shows how far we've gone down the path.

This is the first I've read of him. I've probably heard him on NPR and not realized it. Honestly, it's the first I've ever heard the name. I don't know who the guy is. He does speak to a core issue in our society. For whatever reason, secularism isn't getting it done. I'm not sure why we keep going down that path. Probably because there isn't an alternative (at least on the more global/broad level).

Huh?

Do you disagree? I don't think it's gotten better. As a matter of fact, I think the world of political correctness, so as not to offend, has made it worse.

Are you suggesting that the world is spinning out of control, and ours is the last great generation, blah, blah, blah? All the things EVERY generation says. And, that it is BECAUSE of a trend towards secularism?

It's not spinning out of control significantly more than usual IMO. But I believe we are allowing it to be more out of control than it has to be by taking this "we can't offend anyone by telling them what they are doing is wrong" nonsense. It's political correctness run amuck IMO. The other thing I've noticed in my life is that there's this increasing inability to live in a world where people disagree with them. Why can't we have things where people agree to disagree anymore and be comfortable/confident in our own opinions without needing validation from everyone else? Where has self esteem gone?

OK, but what does all of that have to do with secularism?

I think this country has become hyper sensitive about separating church and state. We're at a point where if anyone mentions religion in politics or politics in religion buttholes pucker and walls go up. I have a hard time believing our founding fathers envisioned today's version of "separation between church and state" when writing the Constitution. I think that carries over and is a significant contributor to our over sensitivity towards political correctness on other topics.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I disagree. I think its exactly what the founding fathers intended. A segment of our country wants to keep mixing religion with politics, whether its calling America a "Christian nation", changing textbooks in our schools to fit a particular belief system, putting up displays in government buildings, legislating against gay people, limiting employees' health care options, the list goes on and on and on. What they don't seem to realize is that not everyone thinks like they do, and all of this stuff alienates other segments of our country. Segments that are growing and growing and growing. The solution is secularism. And, that's exactly what the founding fathers wanted.

Freedom of religion goes hand-in-hand with freedom from religion.

 

[The Commish]

I disagree. I think its exactly what the founding fathers intended. A segment of our country wants to keep mixing religion with politics, whether its calling America a "Christian nation", changing textbooks in our schools to fit a particular belief system, putting up displays in government buildings, legislating against gay people, limiting employees' health care options, the list goes on and on and on. What they don't seem to realize is that not everyone thinks like they do, and all of this stuff alienates other segments of our country. Segments that are growing and growing and growing. The solution is secularism. And, that's exactly what the founding fathers wanted.

Freedom of religion goes hand-in-hand with freedom from religion.

My personal feeling is that the Constitution intended to make sure that there was no "state sponsored" religion that people were forced to follow. That's significantly different than suggesting one can't use their beliefs to change how this country works (regardless of if they came to that belief through religion or some other means). I get that people choose to be offended by things like putting the 10 Commandments up in a court room etc, but let's face it all but two of those commandments are strongly practiced by most people in the world. If they were listed as "golden rules" or framed in some fashion outside of religion, no one would have an issue with them being up. That's for a different thread though.

The bold is true of every single person in this country and would continue to be true if religion didn't exist. Something's happened in this country and self awareness seems to be at an all time low. There isn't a substantive issue in existence where people will unanimously agree. Is there a significant difference between the person that has come to the conclusion that X is good/bad through religion vs the person that comes to the conclusion that X is good/bad through some other means? I suggest there isn't. I do agree that it's lazy to say "I don't want X because the Bible tells me I shouldn't want X" but is it really any less lazy than a person saying "so and so doesn't like it, and I agree with them on most things, so I'm not going to like it"?

I do acknowledge that some religious people have run amuck and become incredibly lazy when it comes to the state of our country and gov't. On the other side of that laziness coin lies the person who opposes them simply because they allow (at least in part) their religion to form their opinion. Religion's theology will never work in the politics of this country. They are coming from two completely different places and that IMO is why things are so screwed up and why more and more people are getting disenfranchised with both the Dems and GOP.

We have countless threads on the topics you listed as problematic because of religion. I would ask you to entertain the notion that these aren't problems because of religion, rather they are problems because of bigots, racists, fearful people who don't like the topics and are using whatever they can to justify their positions. Throw on top of that the terrible decisions to legislate "rights" in the tax code, insurance laws etc and you have a ####storm of epic proportions.

 

[Gr00vus]

The article starts out o.k., referring to studies and actual data. Then it sidetracks into a bunch of tug at the heart strings anecdotes. It finishes off with barely conceived, nebulous appeals for enforcing the writer's personal morality. It's a lousy article. The initial part, the discrepancy between the married state of high school only grads vs. college grads is worth exploring, but I don't think it necessarily leads to the conclusion the writer wants to lead us to. I also don't see him offering up anything like a concrete solution either. There are serious economic implications resulting from being a high school only grad vs. a college grad that I would think have a ton of impact on the relationships, family life and life choices of those two populations.

If we just wanted to spin ill conceived moralization from the rest of it, he's laid the foundation for making a great case for destigmatizing birth control and abortion - if people aren't capable of being quality parents, we should give them every opportunity to avoid being parents. Somehow I don't think that would fit in with the author's message.

I don't understand the blame on secularity you're positing Commish - nowhere in the article does the author give us any data on the religious background of the populations he leads with. I believe studies have established a pretty strong correlation between people having advanced education and being more secular - and this article is making the case that those with more advanced education are doing a better job of living up to the author's ideal morality. Thus, if we were to make a case for the impact of secularism on morality, this article would support that those of a secular background are more morally proper than those of non-secular background. I don't necessarily believe that, nor would I try to make that case myself. But your conclusion about secularism resulting in low morality does not seem to follow from the information in this article.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I disagree. I think its exactly what the founding fathers intended. A segment of our country wants to keep mixing religion with politics, whether its calling America a "Christian nation", changing textbooks in our schools to fit a particular belief system, putting up displays in government buildings, legislating against gay people, limiting employees' health care options, the list goes on and on and on. What they don't seem to realize is that not everyone thinks like they do, and all of this stuff alienates other segments of our country. Segments that are growing and growing and growing. The solution is secularism. And, that's exactly what the founding fathers wanted.

Freedom of religion goes hand-in-hand with freedom from religion.

My personal feeling is that the Constitution intended to make sure that there was no "state sponsored" religion that people were forced to follow. That's significantly different than suggesting one can't use their beliefs to change how this country works (regardless of if they came to that belief through religion or some other means). I get that people choose to be offended by things like putting the 10 Commandments up in a court room etc, but let's face it all but two of those commandments are strongly practiced by most people in the world. If they were listed as "golden rules" or framed in some fashion outside of religion, no one would have an issue with them being up. That's for a different thread though.The bold is true of every single person in this country and would continue to be true if religion didn't exist. Something's happened in this country and self awareness seems to be at an all time low. There isn't a substantive issue in existence where people will unanimously agree. Is there a significant difference between the person that has come to the conclusion that X is good/bad through religion vs the person that comes to the conclusion that X is good/bad through some other means? I suggest there isn't. I do agree that it's lazy to say "I don't want X because the Bible tells me I shouldn't want X" but is it really any less lazy than a person saying "so and so doesn't like it, and I agree with them on most things, so I'm not going to like it"?

I do acknowledge that some religious people have run amuck and become incredibly lazy when it comes to the state of our country and gov't. On the other side of that laziness coin lies the person who opposes them simply because they allow (at least in part) their religion to form their opinion. Religion's theology will never work in the politics of this country. They are coming from two completely different places and that IMO is why things are so screwed up and why more and more people are getting disenfranchised with both the Dems and GOP.

We have countless threads on the topics you listed as problematic because of religion. I would ask you to entertain the notion that these aren't problems because of religion, rather they are problems because of bigots, racists, fearful people who don't like the topics and are using whatever they can to justify their positions. Throw on top of that the terrible decisions to legislate "rights" in the tax code, insurance laws etc and you have a ####storm of epic proportions.

Great post. I agree with almost everything you said. I'll just raise a couple of follow-up points:

1. Regarding the bolded statement above, I don't think its intellectually lazy for a non-religious person to oppose someone who's opinion is rooted in their personal religious beliefs. For example:

• Religious person: "I don't agree with gay marriage"
• Non-religious person: "Why not?"
• Religious person: "Because the Bible says it's wrong"
• Non-religious person: "That's it? That's your only reason to oppose it?"
• Religious person: "Yes"
• Non-religious person: "Then we must agree to disagree because there's no point in debating it if you won't listen to reason."

Now, you did say "in part" above. So, this is more of an extreme example. But my point is that it's not intellectually lazy to simply discount and discard any arguments that are rooted in personal religious beliefs.

2. Tell me again why secularism is a bad thing? You seem to have gotten off of that point. I don't think secularism means we get rid of religion completely, just that it becomes more private and less entwined in our politics. We seem to agree on this?

 

[cstu]

Society isn't deteriorating before our eyes. We're living in the best time in history.

Someone who get it.

 

[rockaction]

Society isn't deteriorating before our eyes. We're living in the best time in history.

Someone who get it.

I'm not sure this is accurate for the underclass and the impoverished. There's a theory that even though crime rates are falling and general statistics look good, those at the very bottom are being left behind and have no chance at the American Dream. There is an active theory that we live in what is called a "custodial democracy," meaning that social and economic institutions are walled off from the underclass and that prisons are filling at alarming rates.

 

[jonessed]

Society isn't deteriorating before our eyes. We're living in the best time in history.

What does that have to do with the article though? Our society obviously has flaws. Whether you feel they are better or worse than past flaws is largely irrelevant. They should still be pointed out and worked on.

 

[wikkidpissah]

The article starts out o.k., referring to studies and actual data. Then it sidetracks into a bunch of tug at the heart strings anecdotes. It finishes off with barely conceived, nebulous appeals for enforcing the writer's personal morality. It's a lousy article. The initial part, the discrepancy between the married state of high school only grads vs. college grads is worth exploring, but I don't think it necessarily leads to the conclusion the writer wants to lead us to. I also don't see him offering up anything like a concrete solution either. There are serious economic implications resulting from being a high school only grad vs. a college grad that I would think have a ton of impact on the relationships, family life and life choices of those two populations.

If we just wanted to spin ill conceived moralization from the rest of it, he's laid the foundation for making a great case for destigmatizing birth control and abortion - if people aren't capable of being quality parents, we should give them every opportunity to avoid being parents. Somehow I don't think that would fit in with the author's message.

I don't understand the blame on secularity you're positing Commish - nowhere in the article does the author give us any data on the religious background of the populations he leads with. I believe studies have established a pretty strong correlation between people having advanced education and being more secular - and this article is making the case that those with more advanced education are doing a better job of living up to the author's ideal morality. Thus, if we were to make a case for the impact of secularism on morality, this article would support that those of a secular background are more morally proper than those of non-secular background. I don't necessarily believe that, nor would I try to make that case myself. But your conclusion about secularism resulting in low morality does not seem to follow from the information in this article.

Not an article, a column.

No one is more anxious for our ancient agrarian myths to run their course and end their reign than I, but it's become overwhelmingly obvious that the generations free to believe in anything they want have chosen to believe in nothing but self. We did not plan for that, David Brooks mourns it (by and large without wishing the toothpaste back into the tube, which is why i respect him) and anyone with sense fears that, without ways for application of social pressure toward miscreance, our ability to give equal heed to the needs of others as much as our own will continue to fall away, and willful oblivion & selfishness will careen out of control. Nothing will bring the anachronisms with hard rules and tons o guns back into play quicker than that.

 

[The Commish]

I disagree. I think its exactly what the founding fathers intended. A segment of our country wants to keep mixing religion with politics, whether its calling America a "Christian nation", changing textbooks in our schools to fit a particular belief system, putting up displays in government buildings, legislating against gay people, limiting employees' health care options, the list goes on and on and on. What they don't seem to realize is that not everyone thinks like they do, and all of this stuff alienates other segments of our country. Segments that are growing and growing and growing. The solution is secularism. And, that's exactly what the founding fathers wanted.

Freedom of religion goes hand-in-hand with freedom from religion.

My personal feeling is that the Constitution intended to make sure that there was no "state sponsored" religion that people were forced to follow. That's significantly different than suggesting one can't use their beliefs to change how this country works (regardless of if they came to that belief through religion or some other means). I get that people choose to be offended by things like putting the 10 Commandments up in a court room etc, but let's face it all but two of those commandments are strongly practiced by most people in the world. If they were listed as "golden rules" or framed in some fashion outside of religion, no one would have an issue with them being up. That's for a different thread though.The bold is true of every single person in this country and would continue to be true if religion didn't exist. Something's happened in this country and self awareness seems to be at an all time low. There isn't a substantive issue in existence where people will unanimously agree. Is there a significant difference between the person that has come to the conclusion that X is good/bad through religion vs the person that comes to the conclusion that X is good/bad through some other means? I suggest there isn't. I do agree that it's lazy to say "I don't want X because the Bible tells me I shouldn't want X" but is it really any less lazy than a person saying "so and so doesn't like it, and I agree with them on most things, so I'm not going to like it"?

I do acknowledge that some religious people have run amuck and become incredibly lazy when it comes to the state of our country and gov't. On the other side of that laziness coin lies the person who opposes them simply because they allow (at least in part) their religion to form their opinion. Religion's theology will never work in the politics of this country. They are coming from two completely different places and that IMO is why things are so screwed up and why more and more people are getting disenfranchised with both the Dems and GOP.

We have countless threads on the topics you listed as problematic because of religion. I would ask you to entertain the notion that these aren't problems because of religion, rather they are problems because of bigots, racists, fearful people who don't like the topics and are using whatever they can to justify their positions. Throw on top of that the terrible decisions to legislate "rights" in the tax code, insurance laws etc and you have a ####storm of epic proportions.

Great post. I agree with almost everything you said. I'll just raise a couple of follow-up points:

1. Regarding the bolded statement above, I don't think its intellectually lazy for a non-religious person to oppose someone who's opinion is rooted in their personal religious beliefs. For example:

• Religious person: "I don't agree with gay marriage"
• Non-religious person: "Why not?"
• Religious person: "Because the Bible says it's wrong"
• Non-religious person: "That's it? That's your only reason to oppose it?"
• Religious person: "Yes"
• Non-religious person: "Then we must agree to disagree because there's no point in debating it if you won't listen to reason."

Now, you did say "in part" above. So, this is more of an extreme example. But my point is that it's not intellectually lazy to simply discount and discard any arguments that are rooted in personal religious beliefs.

2. Tell me again why secularism is a bad thing? You seem to have gotten off of that point. I don't think secularism means we get rid of religion completely, just that it becomes more private and less entwined in our politics. We seem to agree on this?

As to #1, not really the scenario I had in mind. The more popular scenario I am talking about goes like this:

• Religious person: "I don't agree with gay marriage"
• Non-religious person: "Why not?"
• Religious person: "Because the Bible says it's wrong"
• Non-religious person: "Oh...religion"
• Religious person: "Yes"
• Non-religious person: "Nevermind"

As soon as religion is mentioned, there is no inquiry to understand position or point of view. Assumptions are made, names are called....all that garbage. The scenario you presented, I don't have a problem with...even as a person of faith talking to another person of faith, if they only go as far as "the Bible says so" I usually move on.

#2. I didn't mean to suggest that secularism was a bad thing. I just don't think we are getting anywhere in the world it appears to be creating. Perhaps I give too much credit to the bastardized version we have today for the unwillingness to stand for something. I don't know. I prefer not to use religion as a reason for any political position I have and the religion I study is one that allows for that to be possible. Some religions don't afford that (so I am learning). I don't know what the answers are in those cases.

What I know is that if I keep the mention of religious belief completely out of the conversation, I tend to have a better discussion with non-believers than if I present the exact same argument only allowing them to know that I came to said argument through my faith. For a lot of people it makes a big difference and I think the uber desire to keep religion out of politics is part of the reason.

 

[cstu]

#2. I didn't mean to suggest that secularism was a bad thing. I just don't think we are getting anywhere in the world it appears to be creating. Perhaps I give too much credit to the bastardized version we have today for the unwillingness to stand for something.

Or are people standing for things you don't like?

 

[Gr00vus]

The article starts out o.k., referring to studies and actual data. Then it sidetracks into a bunch of tug at the heart strings anecdotes. It finishes off with barely conceived, nebulous appeals for enforcing the writer's personal morality. It's a lousy article. The initial part, the discrepancy between the married state of high school only grads vs. college grads is worth exploring, but I don't think it necessarily leads to the conclusion the writer wants to lead us to. I also don't see him offering up anything like a concrete solution either. There are serious economic implications resulting from being a high school only grad vs. a college grad that I would think have a ton of impact on the relationships, family life and life choices of those two populations.

If we just wanted to spin ill conceived moralization from the rest of it, he's laid the foundation for making a great case for destigmatizing birth control and abortion - if people aren't capable of being quality parents, we should give them every opportunity to avoid being parents. Somehow I don't think that would fit in with the author's message.

I don't understand the blame on secularity you're positing Commish - nowhere in the article does the author give us any data on the religious background of the populations he leads with. I believe studies have established a pretty strong correlation between people having advanced education and being more secular - and this article is making the case that those with more advanced education are doing a better job of living up to the author's ideal morality. Thus, if we were to make a case for the impact of secularism on morality, this article would support that those of a secular background are more morally proper than those of non-secular background. I don't necessarily believe that, nor would I try to make that case myself. But your conclusion about secularism resulting in low morality does not seem to follow from the information in this article.

Not an article, a column.

No one is more anxious for our ancient agrarian myths to run their course and end their reign than I, but it's become overwhelmingly obvious that the generations free to believe in anything they want have chosen to believe in nothing but self. We did not plan for that, David Brooks mourns it (by and large without wishing the toothpaste back into the tube, which is why i respect him) and anyone with sense fears that, without ways for application of social pressure toward miscreance, our ability to give equal heed to the needs of others as much as our own will continue to fall away, and willful oblivion & selfishness will careen out of control. Nothing will bring the anachronisms with hard rules and tons o guns back into play quicker than that.

I don't feel he, or you, have earned the conclusion that this is some new, specifically modern times, problem, or that past mechanisms for dealing with it lead to any better, or different, results than what we have now.

I do believe that our current run up to a severe concentration of wealth in the hands of a very few is making the greater population more susceptible to the moral success or failure of those very few individuals, just as it did in past feudal type societies. And I do believe that technological advancements have made it easier to see the moral shortcomings of a much greater number of people. But I can't agree that humanity is somehow less moral now than it was at any other time in history.

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I disagree. I think its exactly what the founding fathers intended. A segment of our country wants to keep mixing religion with politics, whether its calling America a "Christian nation", changing textbooks in our schools to fit a particular belief system, putting up displays in government buildings, legislating against gay people, limiting employees' health care options, the list goes on and on and on. What they don't seem to realize is that not everyone thinks like they do, and all of this stuff alienates other segments of our country. Segments that are growing and growing and growing. The solution is secularism. And, that's exactly what the founding fathers wanted.

Freedom of religion goes hand-in-hand with freedom from religion.

My personal feeling is that the Constitution intended to make sure that there was no "state sponsored" religion that people were forced to follow. That's significantly different than suggesting one can't use their beliefs to change how this country works (regardless of if they came to that belief through religion or some other means). I get that people choose to be offended by things like putting the 10 Commandments up in a court room etc, but let's face it all but two of those commandments are strongly practiced by most people in the world. If they were listed as "golden rules" or framed in some fashion outside of religion, no one would have an issue with them being up. That's for a different thread though.The bold is true of every single person in this country and would continue to be true if religion didn't exist. Something's happened in this country and self awareness seems to be at an all time low. There isn't a substantive issue in existence where people will unanimously agree. Is there a significant difference between the person that has come to the conclusion that X is good/bad through religion vs the person that comes to the conclusion that X is good/bad through some other means? I suggest there isn't. I do agree that it's lazy to say "I don't want X because the Bible tells me I shouldn't want X" but is it really any less lazy than a person saying "so and so doesn't like it, and I agree with them on most things, so I'm not going to like it"?

I do acknowledge that some religious people have run amuck and become incredibly lazy when it comes to the state of our country and gov't. On the other side of that laziness coin lies the person who opposes them simply because they allow (at least in part) their religion to form their opinion. Religion's theology will never work in the politics of this country. They are coming from two completely different places and that IMO is why things are so screwed up and why more and more people are getting disenfranchised with both the Dems and GOP.

We have countless threads on the topics you listed as problematic because of religion. I would ask you to entertain the notion that these aren't problems because of religion, rather they are problems because of bigots, racists, fearful people who don't like the topics and are using whatever they can to justify their positions. Throw on top of that the terrible decisions to legislate "rights" in the tax code, insurance laws etc and you have a ####storm of epic proportions.

Great post. I agree with almost everything you said. I'll just raise a couple of follow-up points:

1. Regarding the bolded statement above, I don't think its intellectually lazy for a non-religious person to oppose someone who's opinion is rooted in their personal religious beliefs. For example:

• Religious person: "I don't agree with gay marriage"
• Non-religious person: "Why not?"
• Religious person: "Because the Bible says it's wrong"
• Non-religious person: "That's it? That's your only reason to oppose it?"
• Religious person: "Yes"
• Non-religious person: "Then we must agree to disagree because there's no point in debating it if you won't listen to reason."

Now, you did say "in part" above. So, this is more of an extreme example. But my point is that it's not intellectually lazy to simply discount and discard any arguments that are rooted in personal religious beliefs.

2. Tell me again why secularism is a bad thing? You seem to have gotten off of that point. I don't think secularism means we get rid of religion completely, just that it becomes more private and less entwined in our politics. We seem to agree on this?

As to #1, not really the scenario I had in mind. The more popular scenario I am talking about goes like this:

• Religious person: "I don't agree with gay marriage"
• Non-religious person: "Why not?"
• Religious person: "Because the Bible says it's wrong"
• Non-religious person: "Oh...religion"
• Religious person: "Yes"
• Non-religious person: "Nevermind"

As soon as religion is mentioned, there is no inquiry to understand position or point of view. Assumptions are made, names are called....all that garbage. The scenario you presented, I don't have a problem with...even as a person of faith talking to another person of faith, if they only go as far as "the Bible says so" I usually move on.

#2. I didn't mean to suggest that secularism was a bad thing. I just don't think we are getting anywhere in the world it appears to be creating. Perhaps I give too much credit to the bastardized version we have today for the unwillingness to stand for something. I don't know. I prefer not to use religion as a reason for any political position I have and the religion I study is one that allows for that to be possible. Some religions don't afford that (so I am learning). I don't know what the answers are in those cases.

What I know is that if I keep the mention of religious belief completely out of the conversation, I tend to have a better discussion with non-believers than if I present the exact same argument only allowing them to know that I came to said argument through my faith. For a lot of people it makes a big difference and I think the uber desire to keep religion out of politics is part of the reason.

I wish there were more religious people like you. What you're espousing is a very secular approach to politics and religion.

 

[Disc Shark]

The article starts out o.k., referring to studies and actual data. Then it sidetracks into a bunch of tug at the heart strings anecdotes. It finishes off with barely conceived, nebulous appeals for enforcing the writer's personal morality. It's a lousy article. The initial part, the discrepancy between the married state of high school only grads vs. college grads is worth exploring, but I don't think it necessarily leads to the conclusion the writer wants to lead us to. I also don't see him offering up anything like a concrete solution either. There are serious economic implications resulting from being a high school only grad vs. a college grad that I would think have a ton of impact on the relationships, family life and life choices of those two populations.

If we just wanted to spin ill conceived moralization from the rest of it, he's laid the foundation for making a great case for destigmatizing birth control and abortion - if people aren't capable of being quality parents, we should give them every opportunity to avoid being parents. Somehow I don't think that would fit in with the author's message.

I don't understand the blame on secularity you're positing Commish - nowhere in the article does the author give us any data on the religious background of the populations he leads with. I believe studies have established a pretty strong correlation between people having advanced education and being more secular - and this article is making the case that those with more advanced education are doing a better job of living up to the author's ideal morality. Thus, if we were to make a case for the impact of secularism on morality, this article would support that those of a secular background are more morally proper than those of non-secular background. I don't necessarily believe that, nor would I try to make that case myself. But your conclusion about secularism resulting in low morality does not seem to follow from the information in this article.

What Gr00vus said, with this addendum by Charles Pierce. My favorite line: "Chickens are roosting, and David Brooks now spends his time lamenting the fact that they're making so much noise."

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a33569/moral-hazard-pays-us-a-call/

 

[jonessed]

The article starts out o.k., referring to studies and actual data. Then it sidetracks into a bunch of tug at the heart strings anecdotes. It finishes off with barely conceived, nebulous appeals for enforcing the writer's personal morality. It's a lousy article. The initial part, the discrepancy between the married state of high school only grads vs. college grads is worth exploring, but I don't think it necessarily leads to the conclusion the writer wants to lead us to. I also don't see him offering up anything like a concrete solution either. There are serious economic implications resulting from being a high school only grad vs. a college grad that I would think have a ton of impact on the relationships, family life and life choices of those two populations.

If we just wanted to spin ill conceived moralization from the rest of it, he's laid the foundation for making a great case for destigmatizing birth control and abortion - if people aren't capable of being quality parents, we should give them every opportunity to avoid being parents. Somehow I don't think that would fit in with the author's message.

I don't understand the blame on secularity you're positing Commish - nowhere in the article does the author give us any data on the religious background of the populations he leads with. I believe studies have established a pretty strong correlation between people having advanced education and being more secular - and this article is making the case that those with more advanced education are doing a better job of living up to the author's ideal morality. Thus, if we were to make a case for the impact of secularism on morality, this article would support that those of a secular background are more morally proper than those of non-secular background. I don't necessarily believe that, nor would I try to make that case myself. But your conclusion about secularism resulting in low morality does not seem to follow from the information in this article.

What Gr00vus said, with this addendum by Charles Pierce. My favorite line: "Chickens are roosting, and David Brooks now spends his time lamenting the fact that they're making so much noise."http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a33569/moral-hazard-pays-us-a-call/

Really? An article that starts out with, "It was a slow morning in the Cafe. We were all sitting around watching The View."

 

[The Commish]

#2. I didn't mean to suggest that secularism was a bad thing. I just don't think we are getting anywhere in the world it appears to be creating. Perhaps I give too much credit to the bastardized version we have today for the unwillingness to stand for something.

Or are people standing for things you don't like?

If "standing for nothing" is standing for something, then I suppose you're right. Otherwise I don't think that's it. The "whatever" attitude or "that's none of my business" attitude slaps me in the face daily. And I'm a relatively laid back dude, but complete disinterest is not my bag....especially where I see a problem and I know I can be part of the solution.

 

[roadkill1292]

Society isn't deteriorating before our eyes. We're living in the best time in history.

What does that have to do with the article though? Our society obviously has flaws. Whether you feel they are better or worse than past flaws is largely irrelevant. They should still be pointed out and worked on.

It was a response to something the Commish wrote.

Of course we shouldn't stop trying to improve as a society. It's trying to improve that has gotten us to where we are now. We obviously have a long way to go but we're also just as obviously a long way from where we've been, too. I'm speaking pretty generally here as there are obviously problem spots around the world. But we're not going to hell in a handbasket.

 

[Gr00vus]

#2. I didn't mean to suggest that secularism was a bad thing. I just don't think we are getting anywhere in the world it appears to be creating. Perhaps I give too much credit to the bastardized version we have today for the unwillingness to stand for something.

Or are people standing for things you don't like?

If "standing for nothing" is standing for something, then I suppose you're right. Otherwise I don't think that's it. The "whatever" attitude or "that's none of my business" attitude slaps me in the face daily. And I'm a relatively laid back dude, but complete disinterest is not my bag....especially where I see a problem and I know I can be part of the solution.

That doesn't mean those people don't stand for something, or don't have morality. It just means they don't think the particular thing you're caring about is worth caring about or taking a stand on. There probably are individuals who stand for virtually nothing (I don't think I've met a nihilist myself), but I wouldn't think the proportion of that type of person is more (or less) now than what it has been in the past.

 

[wikkidpissah]

I can't agree that humanity is somehow less moral now than it was at any other time in history.

Perhaps not less moral, but far more selfish. Maybe i notice it more than some because i grew in a time when there were indeed great social pressures - mostly from the church community - regulating behavior, but the last half-century has been a study in how people act when how they are "harshed" loses its efficacy. Since the late 70s, i have seen a continual and dramatic decline in behavior among people in public - less awareness of others' needs, less respect for the effect of cooperation in the flow of public conduct - and, now that that an entire generation has been brought up without awareness of polite or thoughtful behavior toward others, it's positively Roman out there.

 

[The Commish]

#2. I didn't mean to suggest that secularism was a bad thing. I just don't think we are getting anywhere in the world it appears to be creating. Perhaps I give too much credit to the bastardized version we have today for the unwillingness to stand for something.

Or are people standing for things you don't like?

If "standing for nothing" is standing for something, then I suppose you're right. Otherwise I don't think that's it. The "whatever" attitude or "that's none of my business" attitude slaps me in the face daily. And I'm a relatively laid back dude, but complete disinterest is not my bag....especially where I see a problem and I know I can be part of the solution.

That doesn't mean those people don't stand for something, or don't have morality. It just means they don't think the particular thing you're caring about is worth caring about or taking a stand on. There probably are individuals who stand for virtually nothing (I don't think I've met a nihilist myself), but I wouldn't think the proportion of that type of person is more (or less) now than what it has been in the past.

Hadn't thought about this, but I guess you could be right. I find it an appalling thing to realize and swallow though. For example, child sex slaves/trafficing. An enormous issue in today's world and I don't understand how people couldn't care about it. I suppose one could argue the "industry" isn't any bigger than it's always been, rather we are just aware of it more. That begins to make my point about the attitudes I come across. Self awareness is going away, quickly and the selfish nature of our beings is taking over. We aren't a community any more and no one seems to care.

 

[Gr00vus]

I can't agree that humanity is somehow less moral now than it was at any other time in history.

Perhaps not less moral, but far more selfish. Maybe i notice it more than some because i grew in a time when there were indeed great social pressures - mostly from the church community - regulating behavior, but the last half-century has been a study in how people act when how they are "harshed" loses its efficacy. Since the late 70s, i have seen a continual and dramatic decline in behavior among people in public - less awareness of others' needs, less respect for the effect of cooperation in the flow of public conduct - and, now that that an entire generation has been brought up without awareness of polite or thoughtful behavior toward others, it's positively Roman out there.

I don't agree. Certainly there's been an ever growing acceptance of vulgarity in day to day communications, at least in comparison to what people accepted 30 or 40 years ago. But an increase in selfishness? That I don't see in terms of peoples' actions. People are as selfish now as they've always been. As I said above, the acceleration of the concentration of wealth over the last 3.5 decades has greatly magnified the impact of the selfishness of those who control the wealth - that's the main difference I see now. When Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Sam Walton and his brood, etc. exercise their selfish muscles we all feel it in ways the overall population probably hasn't felt it since the days of the robber barons (or captains of industry if that's your team).

 

[Gr00vus]

#2. I didn't mean to suggest that secularism was a bad thing. I just don't think we are getting anywhere in the world it appears to be creating. Perhaps I give too much credit to the bastardized version we have today for the unwillingness to stand for something.

Or are people standing for things you don't like?

If "standing for nothing" is standing for something, then I suppose you're right. Otherwise I don't think that's it. The "whatever" attitude or "that's none of my business" attitude slaps me in the face daily. And I'm a relatively laid back dude, but complete disinterest is not my bag....especially where I see a problem and I know I can be part of the solution.

That doesn't mean those people don't stand for something, or don't have morality. It just means they don't think the particular thing you're caring about is worth caring about or taking a stand on. There probably are individuals who stand for virtually nothing (I don't think I've met a nihilist myself), but I wouldn't think the proportion of that type of person is more (or less) now than what it has been in the past.

Hadn't thought about this, but I guess you could be right. I find it an appalling thing to realize and swallow though. For example, child sex slaves/trafficing. An enormous issue in today's world and I don't understand how people couldn't care about it. I suppose one could argue the "industry" isn't any bigger than it's always been, rather we are just aware of it more. That begins to make my point about the attitudes I come across. Self awareness is going away, quickly and the selfish nature of our beings is taking over. We aren't a community any more and no one seems to care.

How many of these are there? And who gets to decide the priority? Communication technology has brought visibility to tons of issues that just wasn't possible even 20 years ago. How many do I have to take an active stand on and do something about before I'm sufficiently moral for you? I mean, in a half an hour a week John Oliver will bring you a new "enormous issue" or two every week. Us mere mortals don't have the cycles to deal with them all, or even a significant handful. Is it enough for me to say, yeah child trafficking is horrible, or do I have to join a covert ops team to bust up slave trading rings? Something in between? And if I do that, how much time can I spend on the stuff that matters even more to me, like how we're ####### up the environment?

Your top issues may not be someone else's. And that's o.k. Everyone can't devote themselves to every wrong and injustice in the world.

Regarding community - community still exists, it's just different now, and I don't think there's any going back. Technology has shrunk time and space, making it easier to find and participate in communities of interest with less personal commitment, with the result that communities are broader and shallower than before. There's probably more communities now than ever - if we include virtual communities, which I believe we must - but they also probably have less personal meaning. I don't much need to interact with the neighbors on my street anymore because those sorts of interpersonal needs can be met online with people I'm certain I have some shared interest with. There's better and worse in that.

 

[roadkill1292]

I can't agree that humanity is somehow less moral now than it was at any other time in history.

Perhaps not less moral, but far more selfish. Maybe i notice it more than some because i grew in a time when there were indeed great social pressures - mostly from the church community - regulating behavior, but the last half-century has been a study in how people act when how they are "harshed" loses its efficacy. Since the late 70s, i have seen a continual and dramatic decline in behavior among people in public - less awareness of others' needs, less respect for the effect of cooperation in the flow of public conduct - and, now that that an entire generation has been brought up without awareness of polite or thoughtful behavior toward others, it's positively Roman out there.

I don't agree. Certainly there's been an ever growing acceptance of vulgarity in day to day communications, at least in comparison to what people accepted 30 or 40 years ago. But an increase in selfishness? That I don't see in terms of peoples' actions. People are as selfish now as they've always been. As I said above, the acceleration of the concentration of wealth over the last 3.5 decades has greatly magnified the impact of the selfishness of those who control the wealth - that's the main difference I see now. When Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Sam Walton and his brood, etc. exercise their selfish muscles we all feel it in ways the overall population probably hasn't felt it since the days of the robber barons (or captains of industry if that's your team).

I'm totally wif Groovus here, who said it better than I could have. I'm 61 and I don't miss the heavy-handed societal pressures of my yoot one little bit. And I work at a small university where the students are far more courteous and well-mannered than my own classmates were back in the Mesozoic Era.

This all strikes me a little as traditionalists being confronted by their opponents -- everywhere. If you were part of the dominant culture back in 1965, you pretty much had your way while facing minimal opposition, opposition that was cowed by harsh measures routinely accepted for dealing with unorthodoxy. That (dominant) position in society pretty much doesn't exist any more. People who think differently are -- everywhere. And they won't shut up about your petty discriminations and traditions that, when examined closely, aren't very fair.

 

[wikkidpissah]

I can't agree that humanity is somehow less moral now than it was at any other time in history.

Perhaps not less moral, but far more selfish. Maybe i notice it more than some because i grew in a time when there were indeed great social pressures - mostly from the church community - regulating behavior, but the last half-century has been a study in how people act when how they are "harshed" loses its efficacy. Since the late 70s, i have seen a continual and dramatic decline in behavior among people in public - less awareness of others' needs, less respect for the effect of cooperation in the flow of public conduct - and, now that that an entire generation has been brought up without awareness of polite or thoughtful behavior toward others, it's positively Roman out there.

I don't agree. Certainly there's been an ever growing acceptance of vulgarity in day to day communications, at least in comparison to what people accepted 30 or 40 years ago. But an increase in selfishness? That I don't see in terms of peoples' actions. People are as selfish now as they've always been. As I said above, the acceleration of the concentration of wealth over the last 3.5 decades has greatly magnified the impact of the selfishness of those who control the wealth - that's the main difference I see now. When Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Sam Walton and his brood, etc. exercise their selfish muscles we all feel it in ways the overall population probably hasn't felt it since the days of the robber barons (or captains of industry if that's your team).

I'm totally wif Groovus here, who said it better than I could have. I'm 61 and I don't miss the heavy-handed societal pressures of my yoot one little bit. And I work at a small university where the students are far more courteous and well-mannered than my own classmates were back in the Mesozoic Era.

This all strikes me a little as traditionalists being confronted by their opponents -- everywhere. If you were part of the dominant culture back in 1965, you pretty much had your way while facing minimal opposition, opposition that was cowed by harsh measures routinely accepted for dealing with unorthodoxy. That (dominant) position in society pretty much doesn't exist any more. People who think differently are -- everywhere. And they won't shut up about your petty discriminations and traditions that, when examined closely, aren't very fair.

Yes, my traditionalism has always held me back...

 

[jonessed]

I actually think online social bubbles have fractured the art of listening and compromise. Why talk with your community when you can find a perfect group-think community online? Why pretend to listen to anyone that thinks different when you can insult, generalize, and antagonize under the name of lolusuck1299?

It will be interesting to see where this takes us as a society. Communication is changing so quickly it's hard to know.

 

[roadkill1292]

I can't agree that humanity is somehow less moral now than it was at any other time in history.

Perhaps not less moral, but far more selfish. Maybe i notice it more than some because i grew in a time when there were indeed great social pressures - mostly from the church community - regulating behavior, but the last half-century has been a study in how people act when how they are "harshed" loses its efficacy. Since the late 70s, i have seen a continual and dramatic decline in behavior among people in public - less awareness of others' needs, less respect for the effect of cooperation in the flow of public conduct - and, now that that an entire generation has been brought up without awareness of polite or thoughtful behavior toward others, it's positively Roman out there.

I don't agree. Certainly there's been an ever growing acceptance of vulgarity in day to day communications, at least in comparison to what people accepted 30 or 40 years ago. But an increase in selfishness? That I don't see in terms of peoples' actions. People are as selfish now as they've always been. As I said above, the acceleration of the concentration of wealth over the last 3.5 decades has greatly magnified the impact of the selfishness of those who control the wealth - that's the main difference I see now. When Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Sam Walton and his brood, etc. exercise their selfish muscles we all feel it in ways the overall population probably hasn't felt it since the days of the robber barons (or captains of industry if that's your team).

I'm totally wif Groovus here, who said it better than I could have. I'm 61 and I don't miss the heavy-handed societal pressures of my yoot one little bit. And I work at a small university where the students are far more courteous and well-mannered than my own classmates were back in the Mesozoic Era.

This all strikes me a little as traditionalists being confronted by their opponents -- everywhere. If you were part of the dominant culture back in 1965, you pretty much had your way while facing minimal opposition, opposition that was cowed by harsh measures routinely accepted for dealing with unorthodoxy. That (dominant) position in society pretty much doesn't exist any more. People who think differently are -- everywhere. And they won't shut up about your petty discriminations and traditions that, when examined closely, aren't very fair.

Yes, my traditionalism has always held me back...

I was expounding more about things and this thread's premise in general than I was specifically about you, gb. Slap hands.

 

[wikkidpissah]

I can't agree that humanity is somehow less moral now than it was at any other time in history.

Perhaps not less moral, but far more selfish. Maybe i notice it more than some because i grew in a time when there were indeed great social pressures - mostly from the church community - regulating behavior, but the last half-century has been a study in how people act when how they are "harshed" loses its efficacy. Since the late 70s, i have seen a continual and dramatic decline in behavior among people in public - less awareness of others' needs, less respect for the effect of cooperation in the flow of public conduct - and, now that that an entire generation has been brought up without awareness of polite or thoughtful behavior toward others, it's positively Roman out there.

I don't agree. Certainly there's been an ever growing acceptance of vulgarity in day to day communications, at least in comparison to what people accepted 30 or 40 years ago. But an increase in selfishness? That I don't see in terms of peoples' actions. People are as selfish now as they've always been. As I said above, the acceleration of the concentration of wealth over the last 3.5 decades has greatly magnified the impact of the selfishness of those who control the wealth - that's the main difference I see now. When Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Sam Walton and his brood, etc. exercise their selfish muscles we all feel it in ways the overall population probably hasn't felt it since the days of the robber barons (or captains of industry if that's your team).

I'm totally wif Groovus here, who said it better than I could have. I'm 61 and I don't miss the heavy-handed societal pressures of my yoot one little bit. And I work at a small university where the students are far more courteous and well-mannered than my own classmates were back in the Mesozoic Era.

This all strikes me a little as traditionalists being confronted by their opponents -- everywhere. If you were part of the dominant culture back in 1965, you pretty much had your way while facing minimal opposition, opposition that was cowed by harsh measures routinely accepted for dealing with unorthodoxy. That (dominant) position in society pretty much doesn't exist any more. People who think differently are -- everywhere. And they won't shut up about your petty discriminations and traditions that, when examined closely, aren't very fair.

Yes, my traditionalism has always held me back...

I was expounding more about things and this thread's premise in general than I was specifically about you, gb. Slap hands.

up high, but then outta my way!

 

[CowboysFromHell]

I can't agree that humanity is somehow less moral now than it was at any other time in history.

Perhaps not less moral, but far more selfish. Maybe i notice it more than some because i grew in a time when there were indeed great social pressures - mostly from the church community - regulating behavior, but the last half-century has been a study in how people act when how they are "harshed" loses its efficacy. Since the late 70s, i have seen a continual and dramatic decline in behavior among people in public - less awareness of others' needs, less respect for the effect of cooperation in the flow of public conduct - and, now that that an entire generation has been brought up without awareness of polite or thoughtful behavior toward others, it's positively Roman out there.

I don't agree. Certainly there's been an ever growing acceptance of vulgarity in day to day communications, at least in comparison to what people accepted 30 or 40 years ago. But an increase in selfishness? That I don't see in terms of peoples' actions. People are as selfish now as they've always been. As I said above, the acceleration of the concentration of wealth over the last 3.5 decades has greatly magnified the impact of the selfishness of those who control the wealth - that's the main difference I see now. When Rupert Murdoch, Larry Ellison, Sam Walton and his brood, etc. exercise their selfish muscles we all feel it in ways the overall population probably hasn't felt it since the days of the robber barons (or captains of industry if that's your team).

I'm totally wif Groovus here, who said it better than I could have. I'm 61 and I don't miss the heavy-handed societal pressures of my yoot one little bit. And I work at a small university where the students are far more courteous and well-mannered than my own classmates were back in the Mesozoic Era.

This all strikes me a little as traditionalists being confronted by their opponents -- everywhere. If you were part of the dominant culture back in 1965, you pretty much had your way while facing minimal opposition, opposition that was cowed by harsh measures routinely accepted for dealing with unorthodoxy. That (dominant) position in society pretty much doesn't exist any more. People who think differently are -- everywhere. And they won't shut up about your petty discriminations and traditions that, when examined closely, aren't very fair.

Yeah! Kids these days...

 

[Todd Andrews]

I disagree. I think its exactly what the founding fathers intended. A segment of our country wants to keep mixing religion with politics, whether its calling America a "Christian nation", changing textbooks in our schools to fit a particular belief system, putting up displays in government buildings, legislating against gay people, limiting employees' health care options, the list goes on and on and on. What they don't seem to realize is that not everyone thinks like they do, and all of this stuff alienates other segments of our country. Segments that are growing and growing and growing. The solution is secularism. And, that's exactly what the founding fathers wanted.

Freedom of religion goes hand-in-hand with freedom from religion.

My personal feeling is that the Constitution intended to make sure that there was no "state sponsored" religion that people were forced to follow. That's significantly different than suggesting one can't use their beliefs to change how this country works (regardless of if they came to that belief through religion or some other means). I get that people choose to be offended by things like putting the 10 Commandments up in a court room etc, but let's face it all but two of those commandments are strongly practiced by most people in the world. If they were listed as "golden rules" or framed in some fashion outside of religion, no one would have an issue with them being up. That's for a different thread though.

The bold is true of every single person in this country and would continue to be true if religion didn't exist. Something's happened in this country and self awareness seems to be at an all time low. There isn't a substantive issue in existence where people will unanimously agree. Is there a significant difference between the person that has come to the conclusion that X is good/bad through religion vs the person that comes to the conclusion that X is good/bad through some other means? I suggest there isn't. I do agree that it's lazy to say "I don't want X because the Bible tells me I shouldn't want X" but is it really any less lazy than a person saying "so and so doesn't like it, and I agree with them on most things, so I'm not going to like it"?

I do acknowledge that some religious people have run amuck and become incredibly lazy when it comes to the state of our country and gov't. On the other side of that laziness coin lies the person who opposes them simply because they allow (at least in part) their religion to form their opinion. Religion's theology will never work in the politics of this country. They are coming from two completely different places and that IMO is why things are so screwed up and why more and more people are getting disenfranchised with both the Dems and GOP.

We have countless threads on the topics you listed as problematic because of religion. I would ask you to entertain the notion that these aren't problems because of religion, rather they are problems because of bigots, racists, fearful people who don't like the topics and are using whatever they can to justify their positions. Throw on top of that the terrible decisions to legislate "rights" in the tax code, insurance laws etc and you have a ####storm of epic proportions.

You seriously misunderstand the establishment clause.