Why Religious Leaders Have Rarely Been Moral Leaders

LuisDantas · May 29, 2017

URAVIP2ME said:
Isn't thou shall Not kill (murder) an interest in morality, besides Not to steal, commit adultery, bear false witness, and Not to covet moral issues, along with the Golden Rule as found in the 19th chapter of Leviticus.

Everyone and every doctrine has some interest in morality, because it is such a necessary part of human existence.

I have a hard time attempting to believe that either the Bible or the Qur'an were particularly more moral than the societies that originated them, though. There is simply no convincing evidence for that.

Bolder claims that either actually made their communities more moral are entirely tentative and there is a lot of practical evidence suggesting the opposite. If anything, both scriptures caused a significant amount of confusion among their flocks about the nature and purpose of morality.

joe1776 · May 29, 2017

URAVIP2ME said:
So then, how a conscience is trained shows a conscience can either ' accuse ' actions, or ' excuse ' actions.

With this exception, I agree with your post.

I don't think that conscience needs to be trained. I think we are born with brains hard-wired to know that It's wrong to intentionally harm or endanger innocent people. There are things to learn, though, for example, the ways that we might insult someone will vary widely from culture to culture. Those have to be learned. But it's wrong to intentionally insult someone in all cultures when it harms innocent people.

Aupmanyav · May 29, 2017

joe1776 said:
Is the caste system a strong source of intolerance?

It is. We are trying to eradicate it. We have strong laws against it. But interestingly, it is democracy which is not allowing us to do so. The lowest echelons of society (listed as Scheduled castes and Scheduled tribes), by Constitutional decree, are eligible for the equivalent of 'affirmative action' and it is very strong and comprehensive in India, much more than in any other country. The lower echelons of society (but not so lower, designated as 'Other Backward Castes') too are eligible for 'affirmative action' but not as strong as at the lower level. Every one wants their caste to be listed under one or the other category, the lowest if that is possible. If caste considerations are removed, how do we distribute benefits? No caste wants that to be touched unless they are going to be put in a lower category so that they get more benefits. Tinkering with that means loss of votes and no political party wants to do that. Therefore, the system continues.

joe1776 said:
Humanity is, and always has been making moral progress. We are treating each other better than at any time in the past. Compare the moral code of today's world to say the Middle Ages.

Don't know if that is true. The Indian experience says that people were far more moral and ethical in the past than we are today. Now there is too much greed and much less concern for other people.

joe1776 · May 29, 2017

Aupmanyav said:
It is. We are trying to eradicate it. We have strong laws against it. But interestingly, it is democracy which is not allowing us to do so. ...

Thanks for your reply.

It doesn't surprise me that democracy is halting progress. Democracy is better than the system it replaced, but I think it will be replaced someday. I have some ideas about its replacement, but I won't get into that discussion here.

joe1776 · May 29, 2017

Aupmanyav said:
....Don't know if that is true. The Indian experience says that people were far more moral and ethical in the past than we are today. Now there is too much greed and much less concern for other people.

Don't you consider the attempt to eradicate the intolerance inherent in the cast system as sign of moral progress even if it is hampered by democracy?

I see religious intolerance waning. There was a time when Christian Catholics and Christian Protestants were killing each other. Before that, Christians were killing Jews and Muslims. There's still some of that going on, but not nearly on the scale it did a thousand years ago, especially when adjusted for population growth.

The abolition of slavery, child labor laws, equal rights for everyone...

Aupmanyav · May 29, 2017

joe1776 said:
Don't you consider the attempt to eradicate the intolerance inherent in the cast system as sign of moral progress even if it is hampered by democracy?

I agree with you there to some extent, because we did not always have intolerance due to caste. Of course, the rich were rich and the poor were poor, but they were respected. That the brahmins could not touch the lower castes or take food from them was very well known but it was considered a religious binding for the brahmins. Caste 'intolerance' increased in the British times just as greed did. We did not have dowry problem in olden days. That too was the result of people turning more materialistic. There are hundreds of religious leaders from the lower castes who were considered saints by the whole society in history and are revered even today. Even the most prolific writer of Hindu scriptures (Mahabharata, Bhgawat Purana, Brahma Sutras) and the compiler of four Vedas, Sage VedaVyasa, was from a lower caste.

Augustus · May 29, 2017

joe1776 said:
Humanity is, and always has been making moral progress.

The 20th century disagrees with you

joe1776 said:
When moral progress has been made on a global scale, religion's leaders have typically lagged behind quoting scripture in protest.

Not really true.

The abolitionist movement was driven by Quakers and evangelical Christians, the US civil rights movement was driven by Southern Baptists like MLK, etc.

Of course many religious leaders also opposed these, but in a world where the vast majority of people are and have been religious, religious leaders have obviously been both a source of harm and good (ditto non-religious people).

sun rise · May 29, 2017

Aupmanyav said:
In Hinduism ethics and morality and religious faith are two different things and are considered separate. The first is 'dharma' (broadly duty and righteousness). That will be common to all, sort of 'minimum common factor' or 'minimum common denominator', like they have in a political coalition. Every one is supposed to follow that. Faith, belief, is known as Pantha (Road) or Mata (Opinion). Every one is free to have his/her own opinion or road to follow. Any God or Goddess (singly or collectively) can be worhiped. We have not tied 'dharma (ethics and morality) to any particular God or Goddess.

That separation is not as clear in the West with Christian Mysticism and Islamic Sufism not being recognized at the same level by many.

joe1776 · May 29, 2017

Augustus said:
The 20th century disagrees with you

You're wrong. Harvard psychologist Steven Pincker has researched and written extensively on this topic. Here's a link to a quick summary of his findings.Intelligent Optimism

The abolitionist movement was driven by Quakers and evangelical Christians, the US civil rights movement was driven by Southern Baptists like MLK, etc.

My general statement, that "religion's leaders are rarely moral leaders," isn't
contradicted by pointing out cherry-picked exceptions like Martin Luther King.

You couldn't name a religious leader in the forefront of the abolition movement and your claims for Quakers and evangelical Christians are exaggerated. The movement grew in various places and at various times from various sources..

Kemosloby · May 29, 2017

columbus said:
Here in the western world, this assertion only makes much sense as "Our reason based secular morality is better than your revelation based morality."

For all the failures and moral horrors of Christendom in the last century or two, we are better than we used to be. But the fundamental improvements came from abandoning Scripture as our guide. You won't find fundamental concepts like representative government, gender equality, freedoms of speech and religion, anti-war, or basic human rights in the Bible. Those have been widely adopted by religious people, to the point that religionists will claim that God always meant that. But it isn't true. The monarchy, slavery, oppression of women and nonChristian people, and such, that we have moved away from are the results of traditional Abrahamic morality.
Tom

Ah right. None of those things existed in the Gentile world until Jesus came along and spread Christianity to them. Right on Tom, you hit the nail on the head. Keep up you delusions. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

columbus · May 29, 2017

Kemosloby said:
Ah right. None of those things existed in the Gentile world until Jesus came along and spread Christianity to them. Right on Tom, you hit the nail on the head. Keep up you delusions. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

You can pretend that the moral improvements I described came about due to Christian and Scriptural teachings if it helps you get through the night.
But I know history and the Bible better than that.

Enlightenment values of evidence and reason over prophets and revelations are what has made the difference. Christians have sometimes been in the forefront of social improvements. But generally, they have been the traditionalists. They saw little problems with genocide and monarchy and oppression and poverty because their ethics came from the Bible and were rather primitive.
Tom

Kemosloby · May 29, 2017

columbus said:
You can pretend that the moral improvements I described came about due to Christian and Scriptural teachings if it helps you get through the night.
But I know history and the Bible better than that.

Enlightenment values of evidence and reason over prophets and revelations are what has made the difference. Christians have sometimes been in the forefront of social improvements. But generally, they have been the traditionalists. They saw little problems with genocide and monarchy and oppression and poverty because their ethics came from the Bible and were rather primitive.
Tom

Ok, I will just get off your cloud and let you believe whatever you want to believe.

columbus · May 29, 2017

Kemosloby said:
Ok, I will just get off your cloud and let you believe whatever you want to believe.

That's the sort of non answer I have come to expect from religionists.
Tom

URAVIP2ME · May 29, 2017

LuisDantas said:
Everyone and every doctrine has some interest in morality, because it is such a necessary part of human existence.
I have a hard time attempting to believe that either the Bible or the Qur'an were particularly more moral than the societies that originated them, though. There is simply no convincing evidence for that.
Bolder claims that either actually made their communities more moral are entirely tentative and there is a lot of practical evidence suggesting the opposite. If anything, both scriptures caused a significant amount of confusion among their flocks about the nature and purpose of morality.

I recall many years ago hearing about a very remote society that was discovered (can't remember where) and to the discoverer's surprise instead of cannibalism they found a very peaceful society.

I do agree about an interest in morality and being a necessary part of the human existence, the human experience.
I find that morality applies to all societies because to me the convincing evidence for that is: conscience.
Chapter two of Romans brings out that when people of the nations who do Not have law, they do by ' nature ' the things of the law (morality such as thou shall not murder) so that those people, although Not have the law, are a law to themselves. They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts ( innermost self ) while their conscience is bearing witness with them, and by their own thoughts (conscience) they are either being ' accused ' or even ' excused '.
Also, ignoring one's conscience can cause one's conscience to become hardened to the point that it can become unfeeling like calloused flesh that was branded by a hot branding iron.

To me ' confusion among the flocks ' is due to faulty clergy teachings. In other words, often such clergy have taught as Scripture what is Not Scripture. Teaching their commands of men as being doctrine.

URAVIP2ME · May 29, 2017

columbus said:
You can pretend that the moral improvements I described came about due to Christian and Scriptural teachings if it helps you get through the night.
But I know history and the Bible better than that.
Enlightenment values of evidence and reason over prophets and revelations are what has made the difference. Christians have sometimes been in the forefront of social improvements. But generally, they have been the traditionalists. They saw little problems with genocide and monarchy and oppression and poverty because their ethics came from the Bible and were rather primitive.
Tom

Certainly Not generally the genuine ' wheat ' Christians who live by the Golden Rule.
Must be the fake ' weed/tares ' so-called Christians who grow along with the 'wheat' until the coming harvest time.
I find Jesus taught his true followers would have the same self-sacrificing love for others as he displayed according to John 13:34-35.

URAVIP2ME · May 29, 2017

joe1776 said:
.................................
I see religious intolerance waning. There was a time when Christian Catholics and Christian Protestants were killing each other. Before that, Christians were killing Jews and Muslims. There's still some of that going on, but not nearly on the scale it did a thousand years ago, especially when adjusted for population growth.

I find there was a time ( for example WWI, WWII) when Catholics of this country killed Catholics of another country and Protestants of this country killed Protestants of another country all at the behest of their religious leaders.

Even if religious intolerance is waning, the United Nations does see a hauntingly dangerous religious climate brewing in today's world, and with backing the UN can be strengthened, and surprisingly turn on the world's corrupted religious sector such as starting with 'Christendom' ( so-called Christian but mostly in name only ).

URAVIP2ME · May 29, 2017

joe1776 said:
With this exception, I agree with your post.
I don't think that conscience needs to be trained. I think we are born with brains hard-wired to know that It's wrong to intentionally harm or endanger innocent people. There are things to learn, though, for example, the ways that we might insult someone will vary widely from culture to culture. Those have to be learned. But it's wrong to intentionally insult someone in all cultures when it harms innocent people.

I can agree with ' hard wired ' because, unless damaged, we come equipped with an in-born conscience.
There are people who have had their brains damaged so that their conscience does Not work.
If a person is very abused they often become abusers, so to me the way a built-in conscience is treated or trained can definitely have an outcome as to whether a person's conscience can either excuse actions or accuse actions.

Ponder This · May 29, 2017

joe1776 said:
Humanity is, and always has been making moral progress. We are treating each other better than at any time in the past.

Neither agree or disagree. Sometimes people have been better; sometimes people have been worse.

joe1776 said:
When we look for a cause for a moral failing, arrogance should be our prime suspect.

Disagree. I think there are other suspects (such as ignorance), but more significantly, I'm not convinced that arrogance is the prime suspect.

joe1776 said:
Group pride, thought to be a virtue, is not.

Disagree. I think group pride gets a bad rep. Consider that today is Memorial Day the United States - an entire day set aside to remember people who gave their lives for the betterment of the United States (just one particular nation or group). I don't think it's disguised arrogance.

joe1776 said:
Leaders sometimes mean well and sometimes they don't; but we can't, as a general rule, expect them to be moral leaders since most were corrupted in the womb when they inherited an inclination toward arrogance from their parents.

On the contrary, I think we must hold the expectation that leaders be moral leaders and rise above their inclinations.

joe1776 said:
The Abrahamic religions were founded by arrogant leaders who meant well, but they were not moral leaders.

Disagree. If they were not the moral leaders of their respective times, then who were the moral leaders in those times? You think we could do better today, but if you traveled back and lived when they lived, could you have actually been a better moral leader? It's easier to be the one throwing stones than to be the one having stones thrown at you.

joe1776 · May 29, 2017

Ponder This said:
Neither agree or disagree. Sometimes people have been better; sometimes people have been worse.

Harvard psychologist Steven Pincker has researched and written extensively on this topic. Here's a link to a quick summary of his findings.
Intelligent Optimism

Disagree. I think there are other suspects (such as ignorance), but more significantly, I'm not convinced that arrogance is the prime suspect.

Do you think bully tyrants, like Adolf Hitler, cause so much trouble because they're ignorant? Doesn't the combination of high intelligence + high arrogance = a dangerous human being?

Disagree. I think group pride gets a bad rep.

What? Most people see it as a virtue.

On the contrary, I think we must hold the expectation that leaders be moral leaders and rise above their inclinations.

Why do you think that?

Disagree. If they were not the moral leaders of their respective times, then who were the moral leaders in those times?

I have no idea. They are hard to find in any culture. Who would you consider to be a moral leader currently?

Murad · May 29, 2017

joe1776 said:
Humanity is, and always has been making moral progress. We are treating each other better than at any time in the past. Compare the moral code of today's world to say the Middle Ages.

Arrogance, probably driven by the need to feel superior to others, is the arch troublemaker within us all, varying in degree from mild to severe. When we look for a cause for a moral failing, arrogance should be our prime suspect.

Our religion is better than your religion!
Our nation is better than your nation!
Our race is better than your race!
Our tribe is better than your tribe!

Group pride, thought to be a virtue, is not. We know intuitively that the man extremely proud of being Irish and Catholic would be just as proud if, by some twist of fate, he had been raised to think of himself as German and Lutheran. He thinks of his groups as wonderful because they're HIS groups and HE'S wonderful. Group pride is disguised arrogance.

When our arrogant nature is satisfied, we gloat. Highly arrogant people often resist change because it feels good to feel superior.

Since two attitudes can't occupy the same space, forming the habit of treating others as equals will automatically displace arrogant attitudes. This has been happening in public policy the world over. People whose ancestors were slaves now have equal rights. Women, homosexuals and minorities are gaining equal rights as well.

The ambition to lead and gain a measure of power and control over others is a symptom of arrogance. Leaders sometimes mean well and sometimes they don't; but we can't, as a general rule, expect them to be moral leaders since most were corrupted in the womb when they inherited an inclination toward arrogance from their parents.

The Abrahamic religions were founded by arrogant leaders who meant well, but they were not moral leaders. They then passed the torch down to men who were just like them. When moral progress has been made on a global scale, religion's leaders have typically lagged behind quoting scripture in protest.

That's how I see it. Do you agree or disagree?

What kind of moral progress you are talking about.!!!!
Depend on what you judge that abrahamic religion leader were immoral.

Why Religious Leaders Have Rarely Been Moral Leaders

Aura of atheification

Well-Known Member

Be your own guru

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Be your own guru

…

The world is on fire

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

yawn <ignore> yawn

Well-Known Member

yawn <ignore> yawn

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Member