Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo

[BlueStarLizzard]

And you think abortion should be legal, right?

Yeah, because we all have the exact same definitions of right and wrong.
Why this whole board is just full of patting each other on the back since we all think the same things and nobody disagrees about what is good and bad.

Grow up, fistful.

[Perd Hapley]

Let's try to be civil, shall we?

You claimed you could think for yourself, and insulted those who supposedly cannot. Pardon me for pointing out that your self-assured moral reasoning has a large beam in its eye.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Let's try to be civil, shall we?

You claimed you could think for yourself, and insulted those who supposedly cannot. Pardon me for pointing out that your self-assured moral reasoning has a large beam in its eye.

No, I am insulted that Balog even asked the question, because it's so incredibly self involved.
Look, the whole point is people are diffrent. With diffrent spirtual needs and veiws. My issue is this delusion that some posters on this board have that without Christianity (or even just obvious signs of it), the rest of us are next thing to wild savages without any belifes or ideals.
Look, I don't question the validity of your religion to you're life. Return the favor and respect the validity of others lack of religion.

[dogmush]

Once our threads go abortion they pretty much just get locked. For the sake of having a discussion of any type, you might think of refraining from going to that particular well.

We are deeply divided on that issue, and the two sides seem unlikely to change the others mind. May we constrain or conversation to the already emotionally charged topic of deviant sex, without going down a road we know will end with dissatisfaction and locks?


Eta: I'm with BSL though. Bring up,  Sex,  the gayz, or abortion on this board and the Christianity gets pretty thick and wields broad brushes. It does get old.

[Boomhauer]

Once our threads go abortion they pretty much just get locked. For the sake of having a discussion of any type, you might think of refraining from going to that particular well.

We are deeply divided on that issue, and the two sides seem unlikely to change the others mind. May we constrain or conversation to the already emotionally charged topic of deviant sex, without going down a road we know will end with dissatisfaction and locks?


Eta: I'm with BSL though. Bring up,  Sex,  the gayz, or abortion on this board and the Christianity gets pretty thick and wields broad brushes. It does get old.

When a judge claims that family *expletive deleted* ought to be legal because abortion solves the issue of the Funny Looking Kids that result...that's *expletive deleted*ed up and just ain't right, no matter how one tries to justify it.

[BlueStarLizzard]

When a judge claims that family *expletive deleted* ought to be legal because abortion solves the issue of the Funny Looking Kids that result...that's *expletive deleted*ed up and just ain't right, no matter how one tries to justify it.

I actually do agree with this. To have an abortion is a highly personal decision. Any legislation that takes the personal choice out of the equation is not right.

I think prevention options are enough. Or better yet, just don't screw blood relatives.

[wmenorr67]

Here is some food for thought.  In monarchies (sp) it was/is practice that incest was encouraged so that a family would keep hold of the power forever.  With that since Australia was a British colony and ruled by a monarch, wouldn't it be in line that some people still hold that true and would support that thought?

[cordex]

My issue is this delusion that some posters on this board have that without Christianity (or even just obvious signs of it), the rest of us are next thing to wild savages without any belifes or ideals.

Is that the point that is being made?  I always thought it was an opening gambit to the argument that non-religious people who grow up immersed in western culture are inculcated to a large extent with Judeo-Christian ethos regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

[Ron]

Is that the point that is being made?  I always thought it was an opening gambit to the argument that non-religious people who grow up immersed in western culture are inculcated to a large extent with Judeo-Christian ethos regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

Bingo

None of us are an island.

The question was posed to search out the foundation or first principles behind ones world view.

Folks start getting real touchy when they are presented with confronting their own unfounded assumptions about reality.

Regarding cultural immersion I submit "Christianity" is being heavily influenced by being immersed in a moral libertine culture run by despotic bureaucrats.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Is that the point that is being made?  I always thought it was an opening gambit to the argument that non-religious people who grow up immersed in western culture are inculcated to a large extent with Judeo-Christian ethos regardless of their personal religious beliefs.

No, it wasn't. If that was the discussion, he wouldn't have asked the question because we already know the answer. I don't deny that I have morals that are partially grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics because of where and how I was raised.
I recent the implication that I and the others who try to leave religious or personal philosophical world veiws out of our politics are just in denial and we really are just bad Christians.

[cordex]

No, it wasn't. If that was the discussion, he wouldn't have asked the question because we already know the answer. I don't deny that I have morals that are partially grounded in Judeo-Christian ethics because of where and how I was raised.

People ask questions that they know the answer to all the time, especially if they are trying to lead you to think about specific things or try to make you come to a certain conclusion. Nothing unusual about that. Then again, maybe he was genuinely curious.

More, if your morality is so based in the religion and moral culture of your society (which is, of course, true for all of us), are you really defining right and wrong by thinking for yourself?  Obviously you differ with some interpretations of morality that comes from the bible and the non-biblical traditions surrounding the majority religion - which is equally true of its practitioners.

I recent the implication that I and the others who try to leave religious or personal philosophical world veiws out of our politics are just in denial and we really are just bad Christians.

Does anyone leave personal philosophy out of politics?  If so, I have never seen it and I am not even sure that it would be a good thing.  Nearly everyone believes some morality should be imposed on others and other morality that should remain a personal decision.

As to just being a "bad Christian," if your morals aren't grounded in Christianity at all then of course you aren't. However, at that point the original question of whence comes the irreducible axioms of your morality becomes entirely appropriate. If you admit your morals are rooted in religion, then the question of the basis of your disagreements is equally apt.  That is not to say that religious folks couldn't be asked to justify some of the extra-biblical origins, strained justifications or neglected components of their own moral code.

All that to say, I'm not sure why you would get huffy about anything that has been said or asked. If you take pride in the fact that you have generated your own moral code through introspection and thinking for yourself then being asked to share the rationale behind it isn't a slight to you. If you have a foundation in Christian morals but have improved them through original thought then again, asking the genesis of your tweaks as well as the reasoning behind what you leave unchanged isnt a criticism.

[Strings]

I think the problem here is folks are only reading: there's a lack of other communication cues, which can cause misreading of each-others' posts.

I have a good friend up here named Billy Ray. VERY devout Christian, with major hang-ups against organized churches. He and I are close, and have discussed religion many times. We can do this without misunderstandings because it's not just words: tone, inflection, body language... all take part.

Another example: Bedlamite and I once got called to task on here by a mod, for cutting on each-other. Dick (correctly) pointed out that this is how we talk to each-other on a regular basis. But others reading, not knowing that we are friends in meat space, not able to hear and see other cues, thought a fight was brewing.

Just food for thought

[Perd Hapley]

Does anyone leave personal philosophy out of politics?  If so, I have never seen it and I am not even sure that it would be a good thing.  Nearly everyone believes some morality should be imposed on others and other morality that should remain a personal decision.

Bingo.

All politics, government, and law is based on some idea of bringing about good (even if it is actually done cynically, for self-interest), and good must be defined in some way. So there most certainly is a place for religion in politics, just as much as there is a place for non-religious ideas.

Contrary to popular myth, there is nothing about secular beliefs that make them more valid in our politics than the religious ones. We are not more free if our liberty is curtailed by the non-religious dietary laws of Michael Bloomberg, instead of religiously-motivated laws that keep liquor stores closed on Sundays. On the flip side, Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to play the religion card, to avoid paying for abortifacients. Every atheist employer should be just as free, to pay or not pay for whatever.

[Perd Hapley]

No, I am insulted that Balog even asked the question, because it's so incredibly self involved.
Look, the whole point is people are diffrent. With diffrent spirtual needs and veiws. My issue is this delusion that some posters on this board have that without Christianity (or even just obvious signs of it), the rest of us are next thing to wild savages without any belifes or ideals.

I could be wrong, but it seems to be the pro-abortion side that has made a point of claiming that any objection to abortion is a religious one (because they believe that makes it easier to dismiss). The anti-abortion side seems to have bought into the former, but not the latter. It's the same way with all of the sex and gender issues. So if someone's claiming that non-religious people tend to be wild savages (who kill their children, and can't figure out how to do sex and marriage properly), it's not just the Christians. It's not even primarily the Christians.

None of which means that I, personally, think that atheists are incapable of morals. We have atheist(s) on this board that oppose abortion, and all manner of other evils.

Look, I don't question the validity of your religion to you're life. Return the favor and respect the validity of others lack of religion.

I, as much as anyone, respect your right to believe as you choose. But I just don't see religions in terms of one being valid for one person's life, and another for someone else. I have a different perspective on it.

[TommyGunn]

Bingo.

All politics, government, and law is based on some idea of bringing about good (even if it is actually done cynically, for self-interest), and good must be defined in some way. So there most certainly is a place for religion in politics, just as much as there is a place for non-religious ideas.

Contrary to popular myth, there is nothing about secular beliefs that make them more valid in our politics than the religious ones. We are not more free if our liberty is curtailed by the non-religious dietary laws of Michael Bloomberg, instead of religiously-motivated laws that keep liquor stores closed on Sundays. On the flip side, there shouldn't be anything about Hobby Lobby's religious ownership that allows it to avoid paying for abortifacients. Every atheist employer should be just as free, to pay or not pay for whatever.

Interesting.
So, if I'm understanding what you're saying, Hobby Lobby ought to be forced to pay for abortofascients in spite of the fact they have morality-based misgivings about it.
So the "you can't legislate morality" crowd/liberals are perfectly happy forcing >their< morality on the religious ... they just don't want religious peoples' morality forced on them.
 

Ooookaaaaayyyyyyyyy.....

[Perd Hapley]

I guess that's a very confusing sentence. Sorry about that.

What I mean is that Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to say, "But religion!" They should just have to say, "But I don't wanna, and it ain't nunya business why!"

Of course, the government wouldn't need to make so many allowances for religion (or anything else), if they would just not try to be involved in every little thing.

[TommyGunn]

I guess that's a very confusing sentence. Sorry about that.

What I mean is that Hobby Lobby shouldn't have to say, "But religion!" They should just have to say, "But I don't wanna, and it ain't nunya business why!"

Of course, the government wouldn't need to make so many allowances for religion (or anything else), if they would just not try to be involved in every little thing.

Dayglo BINGO right there!