George Santayana was right.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Anyone who thinks they can effectively govern such a diverse society as the United States of America from the pulpit, following the strict tenets of a singular religion, is a fool setting the stage for tyranny and disaster.

If the worldwide Catholic Church can't do it with a single messenger doing Divine interpretation...

[4-2-7]

Thinking of the German people.
When your starving cold and selling you body, to hell with morality.

That was the point I have been trying to make. As peoples acceptance gradually changes we move the morality compass. Under duress it can move rapidly to such vulgar heights we would not recognize humanity.

Some things we do today would never have been considered moral 100 years ago. A gradual change happen little by little and numbs us. As a people we justify our own actions until they are right or the truth.

My comment in post 15

"No but I have seen a big change in this country in my lifetime. I see more people not following any religion at all. Is it good for the country I don't know. Has the country evolved into what I can only call a lack of moralities yes. Is it more to do with the lack of religion or parenting?"

Now I'm not saying everything is bad, and this country has done pretty damn good in morality. But I do see some distress in our society and something is lacking with our youth.

Religion and or Parenting has always been the teacher of morals throughout time. Are we lacking?
I like to look to history because as humans we tend to repeat the mistakes of the past.

[4-2-7]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Sum? You're only a criminal if you lose.

Do you know what the Founding Fathers were until the defeat of Cornwallis?

Guilty of treason.

Everything has context.

That's a good point.

[icenine]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Sum? You're only a criminal if you lose.

Do you know what the Founding Fathers were until the defeat of Cornwallis?

Guilty of treason.

Everything has context.

The Nazis were a political party with a leader who had many followers.
The movement was conservatively responsible for at least 30-40 million deaths

that was not done by a criminal enterprise it was done by a nation-state.
Which to me is much worse. You are missing the whole point. To the Germans in WWII they were not acting criminally in their own minds nor did they view their leaders as such.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by icenine

You are missing the whole point. To the Germans in WWII they were not acting criminally in their own minds not did they view their leaders as such.

If I missed the point, you missed the metaphor as I agree with you: if the Germans win WWII, there is no recognized criminality as they do not perceive their acts to be as such. (For example, forefathers of the United States gave no credence to the crime of treason as there was no personal recognition of the King's power as Sovereign.)

Bottom line? Nation-states (including ours) regularly commit acts which other entities do not condone...

This is no better or worse than it has always been, there is no universal moral spoilage of society in which to lay our ills at the modern feet of. That theory is complete Straw Man.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by 4-2-7

Thinking of the German people.
When your starving cold and selling you body, to hell with morality.

That was the point I have been trying to make. As peoples acceptance gradually changes we move the morality compass. Under duress it can move rapidly to such vulgar heights we would not recognize humanity.

Some things we do today would never have been considered moral 100 years ago. A gradual change happen little by little and numbs us. As a people we justify our own actions until they are right or the truth.

My comment in post 15

"No but I have seen a big change in this country in my lifetime. I see more people not following any religion at all. Is it good for the country I don't know. Has the country evolved into what I can only call a lack of moralities yes. Is it more to do with the lack of religion or parenting?"

Now I'm not saying everything is bad, and this country has done pretty damn good in morality. But I do see some distress in our society and something is lacking with our youth.

Religion and or Parenting has always been the teacher of morals throughout time. Are we lacking?
I like to look to history because as humans we tend to repeat the mistakes of the past.

So, what do you expect THE GOVERNMENT to do about lousy parenting and the fact that the populace is becoming disillusioned with religion?

Dave

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Zeke

If I missed the point, you missed the metaphor as I agree with you: if the Germans win WWII, there is no recognized criminality as they do not perceive their acts to be as such. (For example, forefathers of the United States gave no credence to the crime of treason as there was no personal recognition of the King's power as Sovereign.)

Bottom line? Nation-states (including ours) regularly commit acts which other entities do not condone...

This is no better or worse than it has always been, there is no universal moral spoilage of society in which to lay our ills at the modern feet of. That theory is complete Straw Man.

Exactly, and this straw man was created for purely political purposes.

Dave

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

No. Participation in groups changes human behavior significantly.

Groups amplify individual power. the power of a group is much more that the sum of the power of the individuals. This applies to anything groups do, from digging ditches to competing for political power.

Groups create standards for individual behavior, and often exert great control over the beliefs and actions of their members.

Groups are so different and more powerful than individuals that it is folly to treat groups as 'persons' under the law, giving them the rights and privleges of individuals. The rights don't 'scale,' doing this makes groups overwhelmingly powerful.

Sorry but to me the term 'society' refers to every citizen in a nation state. On the other hand 'group' implies a selective association of like minded citizens. I agree that groups should not have any 'special' status, e.g., Citizens United was such a flawed ruling but then since Roberts and Alito joines SCOTUS almost all of their decisions have been flawed.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Religious people tend to believe there is a finality to arguing a point by quoting religious text. This rarely works, even among those who share the same religion.

Strict religion used to guide governance in a diverse society is too narrow, it's dogmas too rigid.

Anyone who thinks they can effectively govern such a diverse society as the United States of America from the pulpit, following the strict tenets of a singular religion, is a fool setting the stage for tyranny and disaster.

Dave

Agreed except for one point, religious dogma is not what Christ intended but is rather the false interpretation of His teachings by men.

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

Religious people tend to believe there is a finality to arguing a point by quoting religious text. This rarely works, even among those who share the same religion.

Strict religion used to guide governance in a diverse society is too narrow, it's dogmas too rigid.

Anyone who thinks they can effectively govern such a diverse society as the United States of America from the pulpit, following the strict tenets of a singular religion, is a fool setting the stage for tyranny and disaster.

Dave

Yet the people who want to impose Christian doctrine through the law rally frequently against the evils of Sharia law.