by AlanF 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Excellent post Alan! I'm with Sheila on this one. The intent of religion (IMO) is to teach ethical and moral standards and to provide an example thereof. When religion of any stripe fails to do so its words ring hallow and it has outlived its usefulness.
carmel
I guess it begs the question whose ethical standards?
I don't think religion should exercise carte blanche or be above the law.
At least, not until God comes down himself, wipes out human governments,
takes over and says, as did Farkel, "trust me".
SPAZ
I believe the loophole that religions use to have their own "moral code" is based on the belief that their "moral code" IS higher than any legal code. Individuals who join the religion in effect consent to adopt the moral code presented by the "church". Therefore those who wind up shunned and are "damaged psychologically" would not be able to claim damages because they "consented" to any discipline as the result of unacceptable behavior as defined by the "church". And I think the courts have for the most part agreed that since there was some consent to join the religion and therefore consent to any discipline, there is no recourse for the court to intervene.
However, the issue here might be one of consent. When a person "joins" the JWs (or any high control group) how aware are they of the severe sanctions for non-conformity? Regardless of how deviant (or different) the moral beliefs of the group, consent is an essential aspect in deciding cases that might go to a court.
It might boil down to a simple question:
Do members fully understand and consent to any sanctions against them for not conforming to the rules of the group?
We live in a society where even in cases of extreme abuse the sanctity of the family is often consider over the individual. Would people join a group/church if it was clearly stated that any non-conformity to the rules will result in the group enforcing family members from associating with the shunned one?
Will pnder this some more.
I believe that you want government to be the judge regarding ethics. I believe gov't rightfully could be involved with ethics and morality, as the Founding Fathers expressed in the Judeo-Christian code of laws that we live by in this country. Regarding my view of whether I feel that gov't should prevent the practice of child sacrifice, I think that the gov't is unable to prevent anything, even if a law exists that makes an offense punishable. Should the gov't enact a law that says child sacrifice is illegal and punishable? Yes.......The gov't cannot prevent anything from happening. If anyone violates the law, they have to answer for it......Do I think the gov't should prevent the teachings of beliefs up front so as to prevent kids being killed in the 1st place? The premise suggests that the gov't can prevent a killing from happening. It can't. Should the gov't get involved in determining what can or cannot be taught? If you value democracy, this could spell serious trouble for any that do not exactly view things the way the majority do.....What does human society do with people who habitually do not practice good ethics? It depends. In some parts of the world, a thief has his hand chopped off. An adulteress might be executed. To millions this is "good ethics" that government supports. I do not think that government intervention is the answer. People still need moral principles and values,whether they get it from the Bible, their religion or through their own conscience.
The government does have laws that make child molestation/abuse a crime. Religions should not be exempt from reporting crimes.
The book of the Christian religion (for example) explicitly states that it's adherents are to be subjected to the superior authorities. When they don't subject themselves to those laws, they aren't living according to the tenents of their religion, and shouldn't be spared from the "sword" that that governments have been given (according to their own book).
I'm not sure about other religions, but since the loudest naysayers of secular interference in the US are the Christians because they claim this government is based on Biblical principals, I have to say that they are deluded and wrong if they think they should be allowed special privileges.
Edited by - siegswife on 19 January 2003 23:30:40
Yerusalyim,
Can you tell me, is there any reason why I can't go start a Religion, lets call it "Baal-Worship for the 21st Century", and using the Holy Scriptures as my "Holy Book", and command that all of my followers must sacrifice their children to Baal?
Using this scenario, should the U.S. Government step in and stop my followers from sacrificing children or not?
No they shouldn't - but in effect they are - the result of a variety of influences
As for the confessional, if people are in danger the should recieve a general warning.
paduan
I thought I would add that, Biblically, it is a very serious matter for Christians to be in subjection to the Governments' Laws (although Catholics, JW's, and Mormons don't seem to care):
Romans 13:1: Let every soul be in subjection to the superior authorities, for there is no authority except from God, and those who exist are ordained by God.
Romans 13:2: Therefore he who resists the authority, withstands the ordinance of God; and those who withstand will receive to themselves judgment.
Romans 13:3: For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. Do you desire to have no fear of the authority? Do that which is good, and you will have praise from the same,
Romans 13:4: for he is a servant of God to you for good. But if you do that which is evil, be afraid, for he doesn't bear the sword in vain; for he is a minister of God, an avenger for wrath to him who does evil.
Romans 13:5: Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake.
Romans 13:6: For this reason you also pay taxes, for they are ministers of God's service, attending continually on this very thing.
Romans 13:7: Give therefore to everyone what you owe: taxes to whom taxes are due; customs to whom customs; respect to whom respect; honor to whom honor.
Romans 13:8: Owe no one anything, except to love one another; for he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.
Romans 13:9: For the Commandments, "You shall not commit adultery," "You shall not murder," "You shall not steal," "You shall not give false testimony," "You shall not covet," and whatever other Commandments there are, are all summed up in this saying, namely, "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."
Romans 13:10: Love doesn't harm a neighbor. Love therefore is the fulfillment of the Law.
Titus 3:1: Remind [the Christians] to be in subjection to rulers and to authorities, to be obedient, to be ready for every good work
1st Peter 2:13: Therefore subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme;
1st Peter 2:14: or to governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to those who do well.
1st Peter 2:15: For this is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
1st Peter 2:16: as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.
The following are questions that I asked Yerusalyim on the other Thread about this subject, and I don't believe he ever answered them:
What if a Religion teaches that their members must kill certain people, or that they must blow up certain buildings, should that Religious Commandment be protected by the First Amendment?
Should the First Amendment protect Muslim Extremists (in the USA) who teach that their followers must perpetrate TERRORIST ACTS inside the United States?
What if a Religion teaches that their members must molest children, should that Religious Commandment be protected by the First Amendment?
How about the following scenario:
A Catholic confesses to a Catholic Priest that he has set up a Bomb to explode some building, and that it will kill several people, and it is going to explode in a week.
Are you saying that the First Amendment should protect that Priest, and that the Priest should not be required to notify the Authorities that a Bomb is going to explode within a week and kill several people?
The following are comments that I stated in the other Thread about my beliefs on this subject:
Clergy, Priests, Elders, Ministerial Servants, Overseers, Bishops, Cardinals, Pastors, Rabbis, and everyone else on the face of the Earth -- Religious or not -- SHOULD NOT be allowed to cover-up CRIMES in the name of "Privacy" or for any other reason.
If a Religion teaches that Parents should not take their Child to the Doctor or the Hospital, but instead they should wait on a Miracle from God -- the Courts and Juries and Judges will rule that the Parents were neglecting the Child regardless of Freedom of Religion.
Freedom of Religion should in no way be a freedom to neglect or hurt Children.
Also, I would like for some Catholic or JW to show me the Biblical support for their "Priest-Penitent Privilege" to cover-up and hide CRIMES from the Authorities.
The same can be said for the clergy penitent privelege. The relationship is supposed to be based on trust. Within the Catholic Church at least, what is SUPPOSED to happen is that absolution is supposed to be witheld until the perp turns themself in. All that will happen if this law does pass is that people will no longer confide in clergy, thus it's the slow dissolution of religion. Sorry, I can't advocate that.
BS, who's trust, the guy that commited the crime, why is his trust, more important for the rest of civiled world to trust the religion? Oh big deal, dissolution of religion. Sorry you can't advocate the protection of children, over a criminal, and you call me a liberal, lol, your more liberal than any real liberal I've ever met. You can take your compiled sumarian and babylonian myths, ie the bible, and cram it. "Your god is dead, and no one cares."
