In response to:

Incest and Pedophilia, the New Frontier

RufusTFirefly Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 2:46 PM
Religion has nothing to do with morality. If you can't be moral without the threat of Hell, then something is wrong with you.
WodenofAzgard Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 11:13 PM
Who says they were wrong? Reminds me of the Frozen Chosin military campaign during the Korean War where a Marine leader casually used the bent-over frozen body of a Chinese soldier as a footstool. During WWII some American soldiers mailed home to their loved ones the skulls of Japanese soldiers. What part of bringing evil-doers to justice don't you get?

Poppy Bush reportedly belonged to a Skull and Crossbones fraternity that used the skull of Geronimo for various rites. If true that's creepy but was it morally wrong?
Kepha Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 10:22 PM
In my travels, I've sat down and eaten with people whose great-grandparents believed that a man wasn't a man until he'd brought home an enemy head. On the basis of your system of belief, tell me why those gread-grandfathers were wrong.
WodenofAzgard Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 10:06 PM
People should want to be moral (fair) because it's good for their self-image and good for society. Civilized people aren't barbarians. Locke and Jefferson, among others, would disagree with you that nature is blind and unreasoning. They believed Man in a state of nature would consult his innate senses of fairness and reason and behave accordingly, hewing to the Golden Rule and banding together with like-minded others to bring evil-doers to justice. America was founded largely on the belief that Man is moral.

Religion is more about power and controlling others than it is about morality. A ruler may mean to rule benevolently but make no mistake about it, he means to rule. That's as true in the religious world as it is in the secular.
gsw Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 6:35 PM
Why would anyone want to be moral? And who gets to define what it is? And just what is it that is "wrong" with a person who doesn't want to be "moral"? Nature is blind and unreasoning, without meaning or intelligence, without purpose or consequence. If you have the power you get to do what ever you want and it is no big deal. As Conan the Barbarian said "the greatest satisfaction is hearing the crying of the children and the lamentations of their women" (or words to that effect) You really don't know much about religion or morality or you would not say such asinine things - religions may be true or false - right or wrong - there may or may not be a God -but they have every thing to do with morality thats why they exist..
Mattieohmalley Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 6:25 PM
Well there you go. The human race cannot be moral without the threat of hell. Don't blame God for it, blame manunkind. That threat came only about 3 thousand years ago and the human race has been a burden on this planet long before that. And according to the gorillas and chimps on the left, a whole lot longer than that.
renny4 Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 4:08 PM
renny4 Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 4:07 PM
Try a little history. All morality and law came from early religions.
faultroy Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 3:50 PM
You've got it completely backwards. Morality(i.e. "ethics") has always been the basis for religions.
faultroy Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 3:47 PM
Religion has EVERYTHING to do with morality. All our great religious leaders were ethicists first. Religion is the burearcratization of ethical beliefs-- (i.e. "morals.")
dan17 Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 3:16 PM
On the contrary, religion or some form of supernatural belief has always been the basis of mankind's morality. It is only after millennia that man has become sophisticated enough to think he alone as an individual can understand and enforce moral values. Unfortunately that opens a Pandora's box of all sorts of unintended consequences coming from unchecked egos, that fear no judgement day.
Rich D. Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 3:06 PM
Yep - read some (secular) anthropology and archeology texts. There are group consequences.
Bill1895 Wrote: Sep 14, 2012 2:55 PM
Does anything have anything to do with morality other than self survival?
Veteran reporter Sharon Waxman knew she'd found a new low. Reporting from the Toronto Film Festival, she revealed the viewpoint of director Nick Cassavetes, which she summarized in a headline: "Who Gives a Damn? Love Who You Want." The topic was incest.

Hollywood's march to tear down -- to obliterate, really -- every boundary of sexual decency should compel even the harshest accusers of social conservatives like Rick Santorum to apologize profusely. They were wrong to mock conservatives for warning of the extremes, as we're lurching so quickly and easily into the darkest "love who you want" extremes of the...

Related Tags: Hollywood NeW movies incest