Julia Gillard is an atheist!

[EvangelionZeta]

That doesn't matter, they're still fixed to that one person (and their mother). Someone who truly believes in the religious basis for their morals will not change them, regardless of the interpretation they have.

...so if someone decided to flat-out believe in any given moral code as an absolute and could NEVER challenge it, wouldn't that also be a fixed moral according to your definition?

[Yitzi_K]

I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.

[EvangelionZeta]

I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.

This line of reasoning leads to two problems.

1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged.  Conversions, anyone?

2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"?  Think about it for a second.

[ninwa]

@EZ: interesting point re: linguistic definition. I have no idea of the history behind the word "marriage", but you raise an interesting point which will be my mini-project for lunch break @ work tomorrow (assuming I even get a lunch break, stupid Parliament passing all their damn legislation)

@Yitzi. You criticise anyone questioning your views for not having enough knowledge about Judaism (and fair enough, I daresay you are the authority for Judaism on this forum), yet you admit to having little knowledge of other religions.

Despite that, you still choose to stick to a blanket statement of "all religious morals are fixed".

Take the example of wearing a burqa - that is, the "moral" of modesty for women. A brief Google search will reveal that there is much dissension amongst religious scholars as to whether the Quran actually mandates the wearing of the burqa, or whether mere modest dress is required.

Based on the same "higher authority", there are myriad, very different interpretations. Some women wear a burqa, some the hijab, some other variations (I forget the names), some no head covering at all, some (like my proudly Muslim friend) even wear short, strapless dresses on formal occasions. Not only this, but many women have switched from one to the other based on changing life circumstances. I am wondering how on earth you can justify defining this moral as "fixed". (And I'm sure this isn't the only example, but it is the only one I have studied.)

Further, if as you say fixed morals are sufficiently so when they are fixed per the individual's perceptions, how can you be sure any random person sharing your religion also shares your interpretation of whatever text(s) govern it? I do not see any difference between that situation and one where the atheist has his/her own morals. Both are unpredictable.

Why not just come out and say "I would prefer a Jewish PM"? Unless you can exhibit a similar level of understanding of (at least) the main religions as you demand from us on Judaism, that is really the most blanket statement you could make, and even then it is a rather shaky one, considering you've proven /0's point that religions are unpredictable and certainly not uniformly "fixed".

[lynt.br]

Also, not to draw this off-topic or anything, but I'm curious as to why you're so set on the idea of gay marriage.  I'm pro-gay rights (as anyone should be), but in regards to marriage I'm personally neutral (undecided) in that I'm not sure whether or not gay marriage is even "marriage" in a linguistic/philosophical sense.  Would you be willing to accept there being an equivalent (in regards to the couple being granted the same status as a married one) without the title "marriage" in the process?

I'm not quite sure I understand the argument from linguistic definition. Surely a word's original definition should be superseded by its current social definition? I believe the word 'boy' historically meant both males and females but no one would adopt this definition today. I can't see why the linguistic definition should have any importance if society no longer follows or accepts this definition.

Creating a new term for gay marriage may be regarded as non-PC and possibly even discriminatory. It would be for the same reason as why previously gender specific words are becoming more gender neutral. To use your example, 'Actress' is now a redundant word, as 'Actor' can refer to both male and females. Society is slowly stamping out words that differentiate groups, particularly if those groups are a minority. If this new proposed term is essentially identical to marriage, why not save the trouble and just call it marriage?

[Yitzi_K]

@Yitzi. You criticise anyone questioning your views for not having enough knowledge about Judaism (and fair enough, I daresay you are the authority for Judaism on this forum), yet you admit to having little knowledge of other religions.

I only criticise those who make statments about Judaism without having any knowledge about it. I don't (or at least try not to) make statments about other religions.

Despite that, you still choose to stick to a blanket statement of "all religious morals are fixed".

No, what I said was, the morals of religious people are fixed. There's a big difference.

Again, that only applies to people whose religiousness is fixed too.

[Bohr]

Yitzi would you prefer an atheism or Muslim PM?

[Yitzi_K]

Yitzi would you prefer an atheism or Muslim PM?

That's a toughie. Chances are a Muslim would share more of my values and morals, on the other hand there are parts of Islam I'm completely against.

In all honesty I'm not sure. With reference to the above discussion, it would depend on that particular Muslim's approach and interpretation of his/her religion.

[Bohr]

Don't all religious Muslims share the same common beliefs. Are you supportative of non-religious tolerant Muslims?

[EvangelionZeta]

Also, not to draw this off-topic or anything, but I'm curious as to why you're so set on the idea of gay marriage.  I'm pro-gay rights (as anyone should be), but in regards to marriage I'm personally neutral (undecided) in that I'm not sure whether or not gay marriage is even "marriage" in a linguistic/philosophical sense.  Would you be willing to accept there being an equivalent (in regards to the couple being granted the same status as a married one) without the title "marriage" in the process?

I'm not quite sure I understand the argument from linguistic definition. Surely a word's original definition should be superseded by its current social definition? I believe the word 'boy' historically meant both males and females but no one would adopt this definition today. I can't see why the linguistic definition should have any importance if society no longer follows or accepts this definition.

Creating a new term for gay marriage may be regarded as non-PC and possibly even discriminatory. It would be for the same reason as why previously gender specific words are becoming more gender neutral. To use your example, 'Actress' is now a redundant word, as 'Actor' can refer to both male and females. Society is slowly stamping out words that differentiate groups, particularly if those groups are a minority. If this new proposed term is essentially identical to marriage, why not save the trouble and just call it marriage?

Fair point.  Language is constantly evolving, I guess.

And Yitzi, you've addressed neither of the problems I've brought up, just saying.

[Yitzi_K]

I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.

This line of reasoning leads to two problems.

1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged.  Conversions, anyone?

2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"?  Think about it for a second.

1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.

2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.

[brightsky]

2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.

I think this is the problem; I don't think there is any universal definition of what is right or wrong. What you have said is only one perspective (a perspective that I believe results in blind conformity - something similar to sacrificing your own rational mind to the beliefs of that "higher authority").

[enwiabe]

2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.

I think this is the problem; I don't think there is any universal definition of what is right or wrong. What you have said is only one perspective (a perspective that I believe results in blind conformity - something similar to sacrificing your own rational mind to the beliefs of that "higher authority").

Milgram experiment, anyone? Humans will commit whatever atrocities necessary under the guidance of a higher, unquestionable authority... "Crusade against the Muslims!" They said. And so they followed, and slaughtered thousands. Lemmings.

[ninwa]

I don't (or at least try not to) make statments about other religions.

Yes, it does make me think less of her. Without religion, there are no fixed morals whatsoever.

I'd rather have a prime minister with fixed morals.

Perhaps you should edit it (again) to "Without Judaism".

First you state you would prefer a religious PM, then you state that you aren't actually sure whether you'd prefer a Muslim one over an atheist one. You also apparently would not prefer a Satanist, even though Satanism is also a religion. (You never actually responded to that argument.)

Therefore, once again:

Why not just come out and say "I would prefer a Jewish PM"?

No, what I said was, the morals of religious people are fixed. There's a big difference.

Again, that only applies to people whose religiousness is fixed too.

Did you read the burqa example? Plenty of women remain fixed on their religion of Islam, yet change their "morals" regarding modesty of dress. They still believe in the same allah, same quran etc. but they have just chosen to take a different interpretation of the text. How do you explain them?

[QuantumJG]

A bit of west wing awesomeness for you guys on the upstanding morals of religion

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI&feature=related

Nice clip, pretty much sums up my arguments against people who take the bible literally.

The 'fixed morals' of religious candidates is mostly irrelevant to the debate. It is not true that being stubborn about your moral code automatically justifies your moral code.

I think that as a source of morality for our modern society, religious texts are outdated. Lots of the morals put forth in holy books appear outright grotesque in our modern society, and so those who wish to base their morality on holy books must cherry pick from whatever reasonable passages are left.

The many different 'interpretations' candidates can have of holy texts combined with some of the outdated morals exhibited makes me wary of candidates who profess to be strongly religious.

First I want to say that I'm disappointed that I missed out on that show.

I share /0's view aswell. I personally find cherrypicking from the bible is good since there is good morals in it, but then again there is are some things that I can only define as down right 'WEIRD'.