Should Religion Be Exempt From Ethical Standards?

by AlanF 52 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Wolfgirl

  Should religion be exempt from normal societal ethical standards?

  No. If anything, they should set and stick to higher ethical standards.
• 

  Seven

  :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.

  Nor should a defendant or anyone be permitted to use the "I was a member of a cult" defense in a court of law to excuse either their direct involvement in or in their covering up of a crime. Individuals should be made accountable and answer for their crimes. Religion should not enter into it. No excuses.

  :Freedom of Religion should in no way be a freedom to neglect or hurt Children.

  At what point does the government step in and enforce Freedom from Religion? Like Waco?
• 

  pettygrudger

  I do not believe we have the right in America to regulate the religious beliefs, or the political beliefs of any groups. Let's take the Ku-Klux-Klan - everyone KNOWS what they stand for, and their bigotry & hatred of other ethnical groups. How many within their ranks have been "disfellowshipped" or "shunned" because they no longer agreed with that type of philosophy? This country is based on the foundation of being able to believe whatever one wants to - regardless of the "popularity" of that belief.

  As far as even "non-physical" harm being done to one who is df'd/shunned, I don't believe in America we have the right, nor should we have the right to govern a groups religious beliefs, or how they choose to disfellowship those who no longer believe the same principle. Although it causes harm to some, it is a well-known established practice - I highly doubt you will find few JW's who didn't realize what the policy was for joining (baptizing) within this organization then choosing (or being forced) to leave.....even in cases where 1 was "reared" in this religion. The person ex-communicated is not harmed in most cases in any tangible way, and if they are (i.e. cases of loss of job, loss of home etc. etc) there are laws that can be persued for material loss. As far as emotional suffering - this could open the cae for JW's to "sue" the df'd party for the same loss. Our constitution guarantees freedom of religious belief, and if we try to "deviate" this now, it leads to much larger social issues w/greater consequences (imho).

  I believe the "ethical" standards of society are that we have the right to "shun" or ignore anyone we want to, and anyone that doesn't agree w/our philosophy - even if it is a family member. Does it make it right? No - or yes depending on one's own personal beliefs. Would I shun or disfellowship my own family member if they became a neo-nazi? Yep - and I would have every right to do so. We cannot go around & start to govern who people MUST have relationships with. Nor can we dictate that any religious/political group MUST interact with those that are not in-line with their way of thinking. Nor can we dictate what a religion can/cannot teach.

  It boils down to an individuals conscious and personal choice. There are plenty of laws dealing with direct "crimes" that are committed - and can be charged for REGARDLESS of one's religious/political beliefs. Religious pursuits cannot go over the "legal" boundaries to the point of criminal activity - but should the person choose to still follow through with their criminal intent - they will pay the consequences. I've never heard of "religious beliefs" getting anyone off a murder or criminal charge.

  As far as the clergy reporting criminal activities - in some states this is already the law and hopefully within a couple of years it will be country wide. Once this happens, clergy will not be able to claim "client priviledge" and can be considered "aid & abet" co-defendants should they not report. What priest/elder/whoever is going to want that riding on their head.
• 

  ashitaka

  Religion should have certain guidelines set down but the government as to crimes involving children. They must obey human ethical standards at least, if they don't do that first, how can they reach their goals of being Godly?

  ash
• 

  pettygrudger

  As an example of "greater" society issue - I would submit "adoption". I know at first glance you would say "ridiculous" - but when you think about it, this would be one issue on which a previous "finding" of material fault damages could be based on. A child placed for adoption is essentially "disfellowshipped" from their natural biological family - regardless of the reasons or the benefits to the child at that time. Alot of children placed for adoption have issues (some more severe than others) at some point in their life because of their parents decision....does that mean a child can "sue" them later for "alienation of affection?" - what does that do to our society as a whole?

  Some would argue that being df'd from this religion, regardless of the shunning & df'ing, was the best possible recourse for that individual. If it was not, they do have every right to seek reinstatement.
• 

  JosephMalik

  I want to raise this serious question: Should religion be exempt from normal societal ethical standards?

  Well Alan,

  Strange how something so simple has had so many confused for so long. But it seems like many are beginning to wake up. Anyway the answer has been there for a long time and it goes like this:

  Romans 13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. {ordained: or, ordered}

  Every soul includes the 12 Apostles (the highest office held in the faith under the new covenant) since Paul took no offense at being subject to them: Acts 25:10 Then said Paul, I stand at Caesars judgment seat, where I ought to be judged: to the Jews have I done no wrong, as thou very well knowest.

  Romans 13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

  So the Watchtowers resistance to such subjection and their attempts to conceal crimes involving child abuse makes them fighters against the very Jehovah that they pretend to worship and subjects for damnation not eternal life.

  :3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

  Even if governments have given them a lot of leeway in how they can conduct themselves, this does not change what is taught in scripture nor does it give them right to ignore such sacred texts. Can anyone of them say that the criminal acts they protect are not evil?

  :4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

  Such governments are ministers of God to keep order on this earth at least until the kingdom takes their place. And if one government steps out of line another is authorized by God to punish it. They are after all ministers of God for the good. This is how mankind has managed to survive until now.

  :5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are Gods ministers, attending continually upon this very thing .

  So the answer was always there. The real question is how did they get away with avoiding it for so long?

  Joseph
• 

  metatron

  I think we need to be concrete about this subject - that we should discuss specifics
  rather than theories.

  First, all religions should be taxed - except to the extent that they offer public charity.
  Merely 'giving' to their own membership is not good enough. They fail to pay their fair
  share for police protection, fire fighting, roads, etc. THIS IS LONG OVERDUE and would
  FORCE the grubby, selfish, hateful Theocrats into concern for others, whether they like it
  or not.

  Second, what is the benefit of allowing clergy to avoid testimony in serious crimes?
  How does this benefit society? Why should society allow a standard of irrationality
  and magical thinking to impede law inforcement? Of what public value is the confessional?

  Third, religions should be held liable for using shunning to conceal crimes.

  metatron
• 

  Mum

  Religions should be held to a higher moral and ethical standard, but by the adherents of the religion or faith, not the government. If one is a member of a religion or even a social club that is hiding abuse, withdrawing support and membership will most likely bring about a "housecleaning."

  Giving the government more power is not the answer, IMO. Any entity that is given more power becomes more corrupt. Are there no pedophiles in Communist countries where religion has less power? There will always be pedophiles and those who protect them.

  This comment may be off topic, but here goes anyway: If clergy-penitent privilege is revoked, the most egregious sins will not be brought to confession. Then the clergyperson cannot refer the penitent for counseling or assist him/her to get the treatment or other help he/she needs.

  We all have more power than we are taking. If we all do our own part as individuals, we can change the world.

  The best answer is to educate every person in propaganda and brainwashing techniques and critical thinking skills as well as what is and is not criminal behavior, who is and is not a target/victim so that they won't make any organization so sacred that such organization is exempt from consequences for crimes.

  In idealist mode,

  SandraC
• 

  UnDisfellowshipped

  I do not believe we have the right in America to regulate the religious beliefs, or the political beliefs of any groups. Let's take the Ku-Klux-Klan - everyone KNOWS what they stand for, and their bigotry & hatred of other ethnical groups. How many within their ranks have been "disfellowshipped" or "shunned" because they no longer agreed with that type of philosophy? This country is based on the foundation of being able to believe whatever one wants to - regardless of the "popularity" of that belief.

  Yes, but what if the Ku-Klux-Klan burns down an African-American's house and murders an African-American person -- should the Government step in or not?

  This comment may be off topic, but here goes anyway: If clergy-penitent privilege is revoked, the most egregious sins will not be brought to confession. Then the clergyperson cannot refer the penitent for counseling or assist him/her to get the treatment or other help he/she needs.

  From what I have heard, the majority of Priests/Elders do not give any "treatment" or "counseling" for the pedophile.

  And, what is more important -- giving "treatment" to the pedophile -- or protecting the children from being RAPED?
• 

  pettygrudger

  Yes, but what if the Ku-Klux-Klan burns down an African-American's house and murders an African-American person -- should the Government step in or not?

  Yes, which is why I also stated that there are crimes on the books which persons can be charged with if they over step the legal boundries with their opinions & beliefs, indefensible REGARDLESS of religious/political conviction.