Religion is a poor source of morality

[Cecelia]

Religion is often touted as a good sense of morality.  "If you don't fear god, then you can rape and murder all you want!" some religious people like to say.  Of course this ignores that Atheists aren't killing people in droves, and our jails don't have a disproportionate amount of atheists either.  But that's not the point here.

One can easily look at the Old Testament, and see some of the flaws with the system of morality.  Rape was okay, so long as you paid the girl's father.  Women who weren't virgins were worthless, and were stoned if they married and weren't a virgin.  Many will be quick to argue that "That was just the culture of the time."  And there in lies the problem.  "That was the culture of the time."  If religion is such a good source of morality, these people would have started seeing women as equal human beings. 

Let's move a bit closer, however.  Slavery.  Not the biblical slavery (which is apparently okay because that was the culture of the time too.  And it wasn't THAT bad!  At least not as bad as modern slavery).  First of all if modern slavery is worse, then modern slavery was developed during a period of Christianity.  Which means that these same 'moral' people developed a system of slavery even worse than the goat herders two thousand years ago did.  The same people that were happy to stone a woman for not being married before having sex.

And when slavery came to an end in the United States, religion was used to prop it up.  Racism and Bigotry have been propped up by religion time and time again.  Interracial Marriage, Gay Marriage, Slavery.  And how about Xenophobia?   Christians like Ann Coulter hate Mexicans.  They hate anyone from a different country.  She's certainly not alone either.  And even if you don't consider her a 'true Christian' because you love the no true Scotsman fallacy, she considers herself one.  And their thoughts on the poor?  They consider them 'lazy' and 'moochers', regardless of how well they know any of the individuals.  Sometimes based on a couple of anecdotal pieces of evidence.  There are certainly enough Christians who aren't remotely charitable, and are completely greedy.

But let's not focus just on Christianity.  How about Islam?  Their treatment of women is tantamount to the treatment of second class citizens.  They have their own views on how they aren't mistreating women.  Given a thousand years or so, when it's looked back on, if Islam is still around then I think Muslims of the future will look back on their past much like Christians of today do on some of the terrible things done.  

One can easily point to Atheists who have done bad things as well.  But I don't believe any sense of religion would have made those people more moral.  Not when we have so many people today who look at things like the death penalty, stand your ground, kicking people out of your country, preventing two consenting adults from getting married (Forget Gay marriage, they were against interracial marriage at one point, and even as recently as 10 years ago the religious argument was made against interracial marriage)

So how is religion a good source of morality?  It seems to me that people are either moral, or they are not.  And there is little correlation between religion and good morals.  You have good religious people, but those people don't seem to be the type that would rape, kill, or steal if they didn't believe in a god.  Some will claim they got their idea of their morals from religion.  But again, most people see slavery today as immoral and religious texts do not teach that.  How about equality for women?  Instead of getting their morals from religion, people tend to mold their religion to fit their morals.  Which doesn't make for a good source of morality at all.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Let's move a bit closer, however.  Slavery.  Not the biblical slavery (which is apparently okay because that was the culture of the time too.  And it wasn't THAT bad!  At least not as bad as modern slavery).  First of all if modern slavery is worse, then modern slavery was developed during a period of Christianity.  Which means that these same 'moral' people developed a system of slavery even worse than the goat herders two thousand years ago did.  The same people that were happy to stone a woman for not being married before having sex.

Minor quibble... slavery in the Bible was just as bad as "modern" slavery. There are verses which specifically state that it's okay to beat your slave to within an inch of his life, so long as he can stand again in a day or two. 

Not indicative of a better or more palatable form of slavery than what we had in the USA.

And yes, the Southern resistance to abolition had a lot to do with the Bible verses, with Southern politicians actually quoting Leviticus and other slavery-supporting verses on the floor of Congress.

[KevinM1]

Let's move a bit closer, however.  Slavery.  Not the biblical slavery (which is apparently okay because that was the culture of the time too.  And it wasn't THAT bad!  At least not as bad as modern slavery).  First of all if modern slavery is worse, then modern slavery was developed during a period of Christianity.  Which means that these same 'moral' people developed a system of slavery even worse than the goat herders two thousand years ago did.  The same people that were happy to stone a woman for not being married before having sex.

Minor quibble... slavery in the Bible was just as bad as "modern" slavery. There are verses which specifically state that it's okay to beat your slave to within an inch of his life, so long as he can stand again in a day or two. 

Not indicative of a better or more palatable form of slavery than what we had in the USA.

And yes, the Southern resistance to abolition had a lot to do with the Bible verses, with Southern politicians actually quoting Leviticus and other slavery-supporting verses on the floor of Congress.

Prepare for Drich in:

3
.
.
.
2
.
.
.
1
.
.
.
.

[Cecelia]

Minor quibble... slavery in the Bible was just as bad as "modern" slavery. There are verses which specifically state that it's okay to beat your slave to within an inch of his life, so long as he can stand again in a day or two. 

Not indicative of a better or more palatable form of slavery than what we had in the USA.

And yes, the Southern resistance to abolition had a lot to do with the Bible verses, with Southern politicians actually quoting Leviticus and other slavery-supporting verses on the floor of Congress.

Yes, but the common argument is that slavery during the biblical days weren't as bad as modern days.  Which would mean that admitting that would be to say that a worse version of slavery was developed under Christianity.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Minor quibble... slavery in the Bible was just as bad as "modern" slavery. There are verses which specifically state that it's okay to beat your slave to within an inch of his life, so long as he can stand again in a day or two. 

Not indicative of a better or more palatable form of slavery than what we had in the USA.

And yes, the Southern resistance to abolition had a lot to do with the Bible verses, with Southern politicians actually quoting Leviticus and other slavery-supporting verses on the floor of Congress.

Yes, but the common argument is that slavery during the biblical days weren't as bad as modern days.  Which would mean that admitting that would be to say that a worse version of slavery was developed under Christianity.

True. Even if you concede their argument that the version in the Bible was somehow a "nicer" form of slavery than the "modern" one, it means that the "wicked version" (using "" here to indicate irony) was developed by Christian America. But it simply isn't true that there was a measurable difference:

Leviticus 25:44-46 (NKJV)

44 And as for your male and female slaves whom you may have—from the nations that are around you, from them you may buy male and female slaves. 45 Moreover you may buy the children of the strangers who dwell among you, and their families who are with you, which they beget in your land; and they shall become your property. 46 And you may take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them as a possession; they shall be your permanent slaves. But regarding your brethren, the children of Israel, you shall not rule over one another with rigor.

Exodus 21:20-21 (NKJV)

20 And if a man beats his male or female servant with a rod, so that he dies under his hand, he shall surely be punished. 21 Notwithstanding, if he remains alive a day or two, he shall not be punished; for he is his property.

If someone can tell me how that differs from American slavery, I'd like to know!

(The trick is to beat them just hard enough so they die on day 3 or 4, so you can avoid punishment. It's all in selecting the right rod to suit your style.)

[Godscreated]

Minor quibble... slavery in the Bible was just as bad as "modern" slavery. There are verses which specifically state that it's okay to beat your slave to within an inch of his life, so long as he can stand again in a day or two. 

Not indicative of a better or more palatable form of slavery than what we had in the USA.

And yes, the Southern resistance to abolition had a lot to do with the Bible verses, with Southern politicians actually quoting Leviticus and other slavery-supporting verses on the floor of Congress.

Yes, but the common argument is that slavery during the biblical days weren't as bad as modern days.  Which would mean that admitting that would be to say that a worse version of slavery was developed under Christianity.

Why are you calling it the Biblical days, if you do that then you should be saying we are still in the Biblical days and the same goes if you try referring to the OT as a time, you are applying the history of a single people to the whole world. Do you believe that the Israelites were the only slave holders, they were slaves under other people. There were other nations that were using slaves and treating them terribly. Do you even know the origin of slaves during the 17th-19th centuries. The slaves that came out of Africa were already slave, they were sold by Africans to other peoples for the money, they were treated no better in Africa than they were in other countries. With this said, I'm not condoning any slavery of this type, everyone hear can tell you how much I deplore slavery and the present way black Americans are treated. My whole point is that you can't just blame a small nation who couldn't have keep nearly as many slaves as the larger countries around them that had slaves, and as far as I know those countries had no laws governing the treatment of slaves.

GC

[Nay_Sayer]

The holy scripture of pasta is the only source of morality.    As always, Godschild you have my pity and pasta prayers that you will abandon your false idol and accept FSM into your cold heart.  RAmen 

[Minimalist]

Do you believe that the Israelites were the only slave holders, they were slaves under other people.

Actually history ( real history...not the bible shit ) tells us that the Israelites and their poor Judahite cousins were more likely to be slaves than own them.

[robvalue]

Too true. Any meaningful basis for morality is concerned with the consequences of your actions, and respect for others. A bunch of arbitrary rules which please some invisible being are the total opposite of that.

The thing that scares me the most is the people who seem proud of the fact that they would be gouging holes in toddlers' faces if they didn't think a magical man was watching them at all times.

[Simon Moon]

The thing that scares me the most is the people who seem proud of the fact that they would be gouging holes in toddlers' faces if they didn't think a magical man was watching them at all times.

Or, just as frightening, they would do something heinous if they were sure their deity was ordering them to.

For example, Deanna Lanay, who killed her sons because she said Yahweh told her to.