Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

I’ve already given you one source. Reading Cicero and Aristotle will tell you that in Greek and Roman society as a whole, infanticide was both moral and legal.

You can use search engines as well as I can. Go nuts.

Boru

A good way to end.

Me reading 40 books to find whatever you think you know.

Go away.

Regards
DL

---

Think of it as reading through a couple of websites to find things you don’t know. I’ll start you off, though. From the Wikipedia article on infanticide:

Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Aboriginal Australia, , and Native Alaskans. 

Boru

[no one]

Religious asshats who preach hate, are colossal fuckwits!

[Greatest I am]

A good way to end.

Me reading 40 books to find whatever you think you know.

Go away.

Regards
DL

---

Think of it as reading through a couple of websites to find things you don’t know. I’ll start you off, though. From the Wikipedia article on infanticide:

Infanticide continued to be common in most societies after the historical era began, including ancient Greece, ancient Rome, the Phoenicians, ancient China, ancient Japan, Aboriginal Australia, , and Native Alaskans. 

Boru

It was never most societies. It was generally only where resources were short and people were hungry.

If common, many of the societies would have dies out, if it was a common practice.

Regards
DL

---

Religious asshats who preach hate, are colossal fuckwits!

I disagree but for everyone, not just the religious.

Have you not heard the adage, that for evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing?

Do you not give it credence, or would you just walk past evil and do nothing?

Hate is born of love.

It happens that I preach hate, as I recognize it's value, as it is created by a desire to protect that which is loved.

If you have women and gays in your family tree, and you do not fight homophobia and misogyny, you ignore the harm to your own.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Is preaching inequality and hate something that you see populations of humans doing, in nature, which you take moral issue with?

If not, if you can't even imagine what I'm talking about....what does the OPQ, specifically, refer to?

It is mostly the religions that preach homophobia and misogyny.

I know of no other ideology that does.

Regards
DL

 You might want to broaden the horizons of hate in your heart, lol.  They don't have a patent on it - but, still..it's something that you see those people doing, yes?  

Do you have a moral issue with their nature or their instincts?  The straightforward answer appears to be yes - judging by the opq and subsequent posts.  Tell me where I've got this wrong, if you don't think that's accurate. What am I missing?

[Greatest I am]

---

It is mostly the religions that preach homophobia and misogyny.

I know of no other ideology that does.

Regards
DL

 You might want to broaden the horizons of hate in your heart, lol.  They don't have a patent on it - but, still..it's something that you see those people doing, yes?  

Do you have a moral issue with their nature or their instincts?  The straightforward answer appears to be yes - judging by the opq and subsequent posts.  Tell me where I've got this wrong, if you don't think that's accurate.  What am I missing?

How much of a child's nature and instincts remain intact after religious brainwashing has made them reject reason and logic?

That indoctrination is immoral to many.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that I'd lean on a childs ethics as an ideal of form. If that's what we're calling natural, though, I have no problem with that.

Do you think that children might ever do or say something, or think about things a particular way, that you could take moral issue with? Something that may be natural and satisfy any number of instinctual urges? Do we apply the rule of never second guessing nature when children misbehave? We could consider this with any specific misbehavior, but also the general instinct to misbehave as a part of boundary testing.

I don't think that the statement you made about nature and instinct reflects what you believe about the moral field. Or, if it does, then you've got a tough pickle to work out, where your beliefs about the moral field make your objections to the moral fields of others and changes to those moral fields both self referentially false and morally wrong.

If nature has somehow made our instincts conform to what's best for us in this moral conversation, and we should never question nature - then religions which preach inequality for women and gays as a consequence of nature and instinct would be true - and it would be morally wrong to question them. .......Somehow.......... I don't think that this is what you're trying to express?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Think of it as reading through a couple of websites to find things you don’t know. I’ll start you off, though. From the Wikipedia article on infanticide:



Boru

It was never most societies. It was generally only where resources were short and people were hungry.

If common, many of the societies would have dies out, if it was a common practice.

Regards
DL

---

You are (deliberately, I think) evading the point. You claimed earlier that morality does not change, I have shown that it does. The societies mentioned above practiced infanticide and held it up in the case of deformed, sickly or ‘wrong’ sex newborns as a moral good. Those societies no longer do so. Therefore, this is evidence of moral change.

And it doesn’t matter if it was most societies or only a handful. It doesn’t alter the fact that the morality of killing newborns has changed.

I think you’re wrong when you say it was ‘generally’ done for economic reasons, but let’s say you’re right. It STILL wouldn’t alter the changed morality regarding infanticide, since a parent killing a child today because of scarce resources would be condemned morally as well as legally.

Boru

[Greatest I am]

I'm not sure that I'd lean on a childs ethics as an ideal of form.  If that's what we're calling natural, though, I have no problem with that.

Do you think that children might ever do or say something, or think about things a particular way, that you could take moral issue with?  Something that may be natural and satisfy any number of instinctual urges?  Do we apply the rule of never second guessing nature when children misbehave?  We could consider this with any specific misbehavior, but also the general instinct to misbehave as a part of boundary testing.  

I don't think that the statement you made about nature and instinct reflects what you believe about the moral field.  Or, if it does, then you've got a tough pickle to work out, where your beliefs about the moral field make your objections to the moral fields of others and changes to those moral fields both self referentially false and morally wrong.

If nature has somehow made our instincts conform to what's best for us in this moral conversation, and we should never question nature - then religions which preach inequality for women and gays as a consequence of nature and instinct would be true - and it would be morally wrong to question them.  .......Somehow.......... I don't think that this is what you're trying to express?

I agree.

Fortunately, nature does not discriminate against women and gays and does not see them as inferior All nature creates, she creates for our it's end.

Questioning nature is allowed. How else would we know that natures morals are easier to explain from a natural view than a supernatural view.

Now if one finds something amiss in nature, that would be a worthy debate.

Regards
DL

[The Grand Nudger]

You appear to find something amiss in nature.....what else is the opq about?

I'll note that gravity affects a good man and a bad man equally over the edge of a cliff - it doesn't spare the just and punish the wicked. The wicked are, by nature, uniquely positioned to take advantage of this. We bargain over morality with ourselves and each other, but no such bargain can be struck between man and nature and there is no such bargain either nature or man is bound to respect with the other.

[Greatest I am]

It was never most societies. It was generally only where resources were short and people were hungry.

If common, many of the societies would have dies out, if it was a common practice.

Regards
DL

---

You are (deliberately, I think) evading the point. You claimed earlier that morality does not change, I have shown that it does. The societies mentioned above practiced infanticide and held it up in the case of deformed, sickly or ‘wrong’ sex newborns as a moral good. Those societies no longer do so. Therefore, this is evidence of moral change.

And it doesn’t matter if it was most societies or only a handful. It doesn’t alter the fact that the morality of killing newborns has changed.

I think you’re wrong when you say it was ‘generally’ done for economic reasons, but let’s say you’re right. It STILL wouldn’t alter the changed morality regarding infanticide, since a parent killing a child today because of scarce resources would be condemned morally as well as legally.

Boru

You have not shown morality changing. You have shown changes that would effect the decision to use child sacrifice or not.

Today, we have ton's of social safety nets so to compare times is ridiculous.

If anyone is ignoring points, it is not me. 

Regards
DL

---

You appear to find something amiss in nature.....what else is the opq about?

No to your first. 

To your second, the OP is about loyalty to the American oath that many seem to break when preaching against it's moral equality statements.

Where do I show something amiss with nature, other than referring to the religious that preach against both natural law and our secular law.

Regards
DL