Beetlebabee – I just read your post “It’s not about Inclusion. It’s about replacement,” and I was disturbed by a number of the ideas you put forth. The first is your claim that our laws are “based on the basic principles of the Ten Commandments . . . handed down from heaven for the stability of man.” Secondly, you further claim that, for those who don’t hold these religious beliefs, “morality doesn’t matter, that religious values are passé. There is no morality but the morality of convenience.” There are two significant problems with your assumptions here.

First, our laws are not “handed down from heaven.” Not even in principle. The Constitution of the United States relies solely on the principles expressed by the framers, and is completely devoid of any reference to a deity or supernatural being. The purpose of our Constitution is very clear: “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” No god, no holy books, no divine inspiration at all. Simply the belief that people ought to govern themselves, and not be subject to the whims of any king; and that people working together provide the best hope for self-governance. Notice the use of “common defence,” and “general Welfare.” These are people-driven principles, based in the belief in human dignity and equality. They are not religiously inspired.

Second, you claim that anyone who doesn’t hold your belief that moral principles are “handed down from heaven” must believe, “that morality doesn’t matter.” Nothing could be further from the truth. Morality does matter. Ethical principles matter. The way we treat other people matters. And it is this belief in the ethical treatment of all people that causes us to oppose attempts to discriminate against the few, the unpopular, the marginalized. It is immoral to deny someone equal treatment under the law because some “holy book” says we should. Morals are not some dead, set-in-stone list of “do’s” and “don’ts” in a book. Morals are alive in the way we treat other human beings, in our ability to stand up in the face of injustice and fight back, and in our capacity to see that each of us has inherent value and is deserving of fairness and equality.

When I read the arguments that religious folks put forward encouraging discrimination against my family, my friends and members of my community, my first emotional response is usually anger – followed swiftly by righteous indignation. But after a few minutes, those pass. And I am left with sorrow, and a faint trace of pity, because until you are ready to let go of your illusions about the morality of “God’s Word,” and turn instead to the still, quiet voice within yourself – until you are able to think for yourself, and trust your own conscience – you will never fulfill your potential to be a truly free, rational, moral being. Morality is so much more than words in an old book. It is alive and breathing and you have a chance to be an active participant in it whenever you encounter another person.

So, Beetlebabee, the choice is yours. You can choose to seek morality in the superstitions of days gone by. Or you can choose to think for yourself, and base your morals on what, deep down, you already know to be right: the dignity, fairness and equality that inspired our founding fathers, and the empathy and love you can feel for others, if you give yourself the chance. Come on, try it. You’ll like it.

Most people just want to get along, but for some, getting along is not enough. One of the deceptive ideas in the culture wars is “So what if you’re apples and we’re oranges, can’t we all share the fruit bowl together?” In the battle of ideas, two diametrically opposing views of society cannot co-exist peacefully side by side…. Or can they? In my mind I picture Tevye, the Jewish dairyman from the play “Fiddler on the Roof”, standing in the middle of the road, cow in hand, pondering these diverging moral paths.

On the one hand, we have traditionally proven societal models, based on the basic principles of the ten commandments. Don’t steal, don’t kill, honor your father and mother, don’t lie…do unto others, and so on….basic Judeo-Christian values, handed down from Heaven for the stability of man.

On the other hand is the belief that morality doesn’t matter, that religious values are passé. There is no morality but the morality of convenience. Society determines it’s own morality, subject to change.

I’ve been considering the idea put forth by some that the apples and oranges should just get along. There’s room in the bowl for all. Physically, that is true. All different races and kinds of people live together and get along, even different religions can get along, because at heart, they have common morals and ideals. They ultimately strive for the same goals. What if there is no common moral ground? Is morality different than race? Is morality a zero sum game? or is there really room for all?

At first, there may appear to be room for all, but over time, the reality shows that there is not. For one side to gain ground morally, the other has to lose.

In looking over the globe, the obvious evidence is that there are no cultures who have successfully incorporated multiple sets of moral ideals, especially when it comes to marriage. Surely in all those independently evolving societies, there must be some reason for this. Perhaps it is because it is human nature for some fringe elements to constantly push against the barriers of society. Civilized society is called “civil” because we control our impulsive natures in order to be better people. There are always some who believe it is an imposition on them to require civil behavior in a civil society. The boundaries of civility can move, but only at the loss to the greater civility of the whole. Zero sum game. I believe that is happening here.

http://beetlebabee.wordpress.com