pop morality

[Drich]

We're skipping one of the most important elements of Drippy's argument, namely that he points to horrible actions done by society and thinks that we approve of whatever society says is okay, rather than using our own sense of empathy-based morality to determine what we feel is actually better for all involved*. Sometimes, powerful people get their way and try to excuse their actions based on jingoism, or religion, or whatever philosophical means they feel can help them achieve their ends... since you're referring to Nazis constantly, I'd point out that the intellectuals (even among his own party) were among the first people Hitler-and-company targeted, since they spoke out against his ideas, his abuse of science, and his violent rhetoric.

What's being skipped here is that the Bible is also (clearly, to an outside observer) a construct of society; in particular, two societies. One was an extremely violent, patriarchal warrior-tribe that believed in slavery, genocide, and blood rituals, among other things we in post-Enlightenment circles consider morally abhorrent. The second was a post-Hellenic Judea and Asia Minor under Roman control, and the reaction of people as they tried to reconcile the ancient teachings with more modern philosophical influences (particularly Paul, of course). All were written by the hands of men--they claimed to be inspired by Gawd, of course, according to Drippy and his kind--and all were constructs of their societies, with all the obvious baggage.

The difference is that we look to society and try to correct it onto an ever-better course, one that takes the maximal good for everyone involved and reduces harm to everyone. They take what was constructed 2500-1700 years ago and try to massage it until they can still tolerate the intolerable things contained within, while simultaneously trying to claim it is we who need to correct our path back onto the program set out by that ancient society. Thus all this bizarre chatter about "obedience to the will of God", which no one can quite discern in a way that everyone else agrees upon, but all seem to agree that it really is The Will of God™ that they've personally tapped into, they have a strong emotional motive for clinging desperately to it and refusing to even listen to others who try to tell them the problem with their Bronze Age moral constructs.

Because they quite literally think of the Bible as "dictated-by-God-to-His-secretaries", they refuse to see the obvious and instead must claim that is is we who "don't get it".

But we do get it. It's as plain as noses on faces. And it's pathetic.

*Edit to Add: When I say "for all involved", I mean that sometimes rights are a trade-off, or they are not supported by the majority but must be minority rights protected against the majority (see both the Federalist papers and the US Constitution). For instance, with your example of abortion and the emotional trap of "sucking baby brains out" (or however you phrased it), our courts determined that it was a far worse evil for the government to dictate to women and their doctors what they were allowed to do to their reproductive systems. They went to great lengths to explain why, and it's available online if you care enough to read Roe or Casey.  Another cited example is homosexual behavior, which you referenced earlier... it's another case of there being no harm except to the people who follow a religious book, so their right to liberty was determined to be more important, as was also the case with the recent decision on gay marriage. More people get rights, and while some are offended by that fact for ideological reasons, it really is the greatest good versus the degree of harm, a fairly simple moral/social system that we have developed in this country which should be lauded, not scorned. You Christers whine and scream about it, but the fact is all that is happening is that people are no longer being forced to follow the social constructs of a Bronze Age blood-sacrificing, genocidal sheepherder tribe, and we think that's A Good Thing™.

Swing and another miss.
I'm not saying one society is better than another. I am simply point out the justification processes you all use to make yourself seem better, then I am showing you your own hypocrisy in that no matter how much you claim this society has evolved.. by definition NOTHING HAS CHANGED! That is why your 'morality' is a crap standard that can not be used to judge anything except your own self delusion. Your 'morality' is nothing more than society lying to itself that it has changed and things are better. For some this is true, but is generally at the cost of the rest of the world's opportunity to be what we have become.

Or did you think that whole middle eastern rage against the west was just about religion?

Again not saying the world would be better off or that their society would befit the world better than this one. Just again pointing out the method in which they too use to justify their acts. Just like us, and just like the nazis they think they are the 'good guys.'

Funny how no one in the world going into a war set out to destroy the 'good guys.' That's the power 'morality' has. that is what you d-bags are defending. a system that can justify your actions no matter what they are, it just has to be marketed to the masses correctly. (which by all accounts and definitions is the meaning for the term propaganda.)

So why then do you defend a system that is controlled and regulated by propaganda?