work in progress
Well-Known Member
No; everyone aside from psychopaths feels an involuntary aversion many moral perversions, and murder would be one that is a universal taboo. The problem is that revulsion of murder varies with how separate the victim is from us and our society. Historically, murder is always a crime within the tribe, and then within the nation; but the problem comes in trying to apply "thou shalt not murder" as a universal value. Even Judaism, which places that in the Law handed down to Moses, creates a whole set of rules and circumstances in the Torah where murder is justified, and even in a few circumstances - commanded by God! And refusal to carry out the murder of enemies of God is a sin! Turning the whole argument that the right religion will prevent murder completely upside down. If there are any circumstances where foreign enemies or offenders of God's Law can be murdered, then the argument falls flat!
Religion...or more accurately, the right kind of religious teaching and practice, could lead the way to true universal values that inspire people to oppose tyranny, but there may be non-religious methods of achieving the same goals. So far, the problem with secular morality is that it is a mile wide and an inch deep! Many secular humanists may believe the right things about universal brotherhood, but do nothing to alleviate the suffering of others or push back against tyranny because merely having the correct set of beliefs does not do much to change the way people act or conduct themselves in their everyday lives. There does seem to be some type of practice or ritual necessary that makes personal demands and requires some level of regular commitment before people change the way they act. A lot of the problem with humanism is that it is enthralled with reason, logic and other manifestations of higher order thinking, when most of the way we act come from an unconscious level of mental processing that only changes through developing new routines and repeating them over and over again until they become deeply engrained.
Like I said before, I believe that this world and the entire human race is imperiled and facing extinction, likely not that long after we are dead and gone. Any group or any advocate who is trying to get people to focus beyond their immediate needs and gratifications, and consider doing what is necessary to preserve this world for future generations is okay by me, from whatever direction they are coming from. I have spent my life doing what most middle class people do and try to achieve, and most everyday people I talk to, start shutting down as soon as they consider that saving the future might mean making significant sacrifices here and now. Is capitalism a non-starter, or parting with our love affair with the automobile, if they are sowing the seeds of destruction? Because, from what I have learned about the way our economic system works, and the energy, quantity of resources, and the infrastructure necessary to maintain "happy motoring" is a major root cause of the present predicament. But, where I live (in Canada) the numbers of people opposed to extracting bitumen from tar sands for oil, is growing...out of the recognition that it is one of the few sources of oil left, and regardless of the great environmental damage that this development is doing. Sad to say, the majority are betraying themselves as being more concerned in preserving their present way of life, than they are for the consequences of what happens to those coming after us in the next generation or two, who will have to deal with a hotter climate and dying oceans. I can agree that religion is often necessary to motivate people to make the kinds of sacrifices that are sometimes necessary, but it certainly better be the right kind of religion! Because there sure seems to be a whole lot of religion where I live that is on the other side, and think God will just bring them the Rapture or the 2nd Coming when this world is degraded beyond repair!
Let's stop here and consider that Islam was a religion founded at a time of particular turmoil on the Arabian Peninsula, and that Arabia, because of its vast deserts, and open spaces, and isolated pockets was fresh water and other resources, was a land that was almost designed to create constant war and conflict; and whether Muhammad believed or not that he was hearing the voice of God, he appeared to take a great interest in finding a way to create order and create and apply rules for the people to follow. And when we consider the situation in modern times, with over a billion Muslims in the world, who have varied ideas and interpretations on dealing with consumerism, western culture and foreign religions, one western mode of thinking that potentially lights the fuse for conflict is the teaching that Islam in all its forms has no positive merits and must be eradicated and replaced by Christianity...whether or not by force or claiming it can be done peacefully.
Christianity, on the other hand was faced with a particular dilemma when it came to how Christians should go to war because all of the justification for war in their scriptures was way back in the Old Testament, and a Christian theory of "Just War" had to await the arrival of Thomas Aquinas, because Christianity was created around the belief that they were already living in the end times, and thought that Jesus would return to destroy the Roman Empire and establish his kingdom on Earth....or at least that's what a lot of the symbolism of books like Revelation would indicate. It is more correct to observe that Christianity left a lot of holes to fill in the New Testament because the writers hadn't thought far enough ahead into the future to consider the dilemma of Christians becoming the state religions in Christian-majority nations.
Is killing convicted murderers right? First problem that being convicted just means convicted by jury or judge, not that the convicted person is actually guilty of the crime. In the U.S., as soon as DNA analysis was done in some old murder cases, we find that a large minority could not have committed the crime, and many innocent victims were convicted and put to death. The application of law in capital punishment cases has been found to be highly skewed by race and wealth. The whiter you are, and the richer you are, the less likely you are to be put to death. It was observed during the trial of O.J. Simpson 20 years ago when the D.A.'s office declined the death penalty in favor of life imprisonment that many blacks have been executed in America, but the U.S. had (and likely still hasn't) ever executed a millionaire convicted of murder. And in the O.J. Case, I guess the takeaway is that money trumps race. But, even if there is no doubt about guilt, is the Christian claim of universal concern for life negated by killing someone who for whatever reasons, has killed someone themselves?
I raised the issue, even though it doesn't impact me personally, because it seems to be the civil rights issue of our time, and a lot of the reasons for condemning and ostracizing homosexuals today have been shown to have no merits in light of scientific evidence. Gay marriage is an example of an issue that should not even exist, since nations, like one where I live, have recognized same-sex marriage and the issue has vanished from public or media concern, while in the U.S., you would think the sky was going to fall if gay marriage is legal.
It serves as a modern example of how rigid adherence to scriptural interpretation does nothing positive for the believer, and creates misery for the group that's targeted. And, if we consider that one of the things conservatives harp on about most regarding gay men is their promiscuity and STD rates, and yet changing marriage laws to encourage at least some gay men to form permanent partnerships is considered the sin by fundamentalist Christians! This is bizzarro world!
