Which "new morality"?
How would you characterise the "new morality" that believes Tony Blair is seeking to impose on the country? What is the "old morality"? And hasn't "morality" always been a matter of debate and disagreement within society? Or are there some moral principles that are "absolute", in the sense that they hold good in all times and places and cultures? We'll be trying to get to the bottom of the new morality debate on this week's Sunday Sequence programme with sociologist Elaine Storkey, legal philosopher Simon Lee, Lib Dem MP Evan Harris and Claire Fox from the Institute of Ideas.
Comments
The new morality thing is weird. Medievalism from the church. It's time to dump the prejudice even if it is traditional .
Moral absolutes? Can't think of any ...
What's the argument about moral absolutes about. This is nothing to do woth that. It's about a church trying to keep discrimination legal. That's appalling and we should all say it is unacceptable for churches to attack gay people.
If this new morality means the church is subservient to the state it is long overdo. The church had better give up the idea that it is above the law or that it is the law. In a democratic society, the elected representatives of the people decide what the laws will be. If that decision conflicts with what the church tries to teach, it only reveals that they have failed to be sufficiently persuasive to the majority in their arguments. What a novel idea for them, the church must bow to the will of the people in matters of law. How frustrating it must be to those who are convinced they are the sole interpreters of the ultimate law handed down by the ultimate lawmaker. Too bad. Considering that they once had virtually absolute rule centuries ago, they can only blame thier failure on a very long term decline. Rather than look outward and blame the state, they should turn their criticism inward and try to understand the reason for their own failure.
Duplicate submittal due to indicated 主播大秀 file server unavailability, disregard if previously posted.
If this new morality means the church is subservient to the state it is long overdo. The church had better give up the idea that it is above the law of man or that it is the law of man. In a democratic society, the elected representatives of the people decide what the laws will be. If that decision conflicts with what the church tries to teach, it only reveals that they have failed to be sufficiently persuasive to the majority in their arguments. What a novel idea for them, the church must bow to the will of the people in matters of law and only has influence through persuasion, not power through coercion. How frustrating it must be to those who are convinced they are the sole interpreters of the ultimate law handed down by the ultimate lawmaker. Too bad. Considering that they once had virtually absolute rule centuries ago, they can only blame their decline on their own very long term failure as their number of subservient followers dwindled. Rather than look outward and blame the state, they should turn their criticism inward and try to understand the reason for their own shortcomings. No longer having the power of physical coercion, they seem to have lost the power of psychological coercion as well. Citizens are no more frightened by the prospect of ostracism or eternity in hell than they are of the rack or burning at the stake.
I was ridiculed and denigrated by those whom I was warning because I had the moral courage to stand outside the church where I am a member to warn the congregation of the Brave New World of New Labour鈥檚 morality that God given freedoms of conscience would eventually become a crime against the state the Christian consensus of past generations would be replaced with a humanistic consensus were everything is permissible.
In 1997 prior to the Westminster election of that year I informed the congregation what would happen if New Labour were elected into power and the effect this would have on the morals of our country, the moral bankruptcy of New Labour would be inflicted upon our Nation this tyranny of the state would be developed against the church through time little by little and this moral decay would be the creation of New Labour whom have become intoxicated with their governmental power.
New Labour would sacrifice Britain鈥檚 Christian morality for their immoral man made humanistic moral values which are pro-gay, anti-family, anti-church, pro-state, anti-christ, pro-self . I鈥檓 afraid that the prophetical warning鈥檚 I gave on that Sunday morning back in 1997 have gone unheard by those Christians who are dead to the world deep within the confines of their comfort zone, leave me alone 鈥淚鈥檓 OK jack鈥 while the bastard child of New Labour is growing stronger day by day by subjugating the Christian moral conscience to the dictatorial control of the state, sadly it is only a remnant of CHRISTIANS today that are taking a stand and sounding the SHOFAR to the Nation.
Christians today are under the moral control of Big Brother instead of living under the Lordship of THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. The depraved liberty of New Labour is slavery of the Christian conscience to the state. BRITAIN AWAKE
For me the most interesting part of this morning鈥檚 program was the discussion with Mark Vernon and John Haldane on Vernon鈥檚 book 鈥淪cience, Religion, and the Meaning of Life鈥
The cover of Vernon鈥檚 book looks eerily similar to that of Richard Holloway鈥檚 book 鈥淟ooking in the Distance鈥
which makes one wonder if this was just a coincidence as both authors I think occupy this same middle ground of agnosticism between fundamentalism and atheism.
Vernon鈥檚 position struck a very strong chord with me as I basically see his own journey of faith as having paralleled my own and we seem to have ended up in the same position - I define myself as both an agnostic Christian and an agnostic Scientist although I think Vernon鈥檚 position would be more of an agnostic who leans toward the Christian religion.
The discussion around accepting uncertainty in both our spiritual and scientific beliefs was particularly well developed with the discussions around Socrates and Augustine. As Vernon pointed out the genius of Socrates was that true wisdom is not to understand everything (though that is our ultimate goal, as Will interjected) but to understand the limits of one鈥檚 knowledge as humans with a certain brain capacity.
John Haldane adequately captured how one can be an agnostic Christian 鈥 i.e. why is this not a contradiction in terms 鈥 when he pointed out the difference between 鈥榦rdinary agnosticism鈥 (I really just don鈥檛 know what to think on the matter and I really haven鈥檛 looked at it in too much detail) versus 鈥榠nvestigative agnosticism鈥 (I have considered the matter and see no conclusive reason to go one way or another).
It was also very interesting to hear Vernon point out that the 鈥榓gnostic spirit鈥 is what has driven both religion and science to greater depths of understanding and knowledge. He also expressed a fear, which I also hold, that the 鈥榓gnostic spirit鈥 is being driven out of both science and spirituality/religion by the modern need for certainty 鈥 by our modern tendency to live in a state of 鈥榚xtremes鈥. The biologists seem to be driven more by these tendencies towards certainty than the cosmologists 鈥 the latter finding that the more they study the universe the more questions they are turning up about matters they just don鈥檛, and maybe never will, understand.
But as Will pointed out the possibility of there being answers makes all of our questions meaningful.
Any thoughts from others on this aspect of the program?
Regards,
Michael
What I find most interesting about the Govt refusing to make any concession to the Christian churches is what it says about the churches' role as moral leaders.
Most people nowadays do not see homosexuality as dangerous or immoral. The Govt can stand up to the churches on this one simply because not enough people believe that homosexuality is wrong. Experience and common sense tells us that it is not a problem and the religious bias against it is mistaken.
I agree that we should not always let society define morality by consensus but in this case I believe that the consensus view is correct. We cannot allow people to practice discrimination just because it is their belief that some sector of society is evil. I think it is important that we not let dogma that causes discrimination go unchallanged - whether political or religious.
The churches, like the proponents of any philosophy, are free to put their position but have no right to have it automatically respected.
Two questions:
1) What would be the position of the UK government if Catholic adoption agencies were funded solely by the RC church, accepted only RC baptized children for placement, and placed those children only within practicing RC heterosexual families?
2) Would it be discriminatory if an adoption agency refused to place an English Muslim child into a Christian family?
Regards,
Michael
Old morality is judeo christian values.
New morality is neo-pagan values, polytheism, polysexuality, nature worship, hedonism, self.
The entire legal and cultural basis of britain is based on Judeo Christian values originally.
A lawyer lecturer of mine was very open about this to me and it is eveident if you look at the legal system.
Our language, holydays, festivals and worldview assumptions are still quite christian.
Surely the reason Britain is such a unique political and religious freedom in world history is because it had such a close relationship to the bible. No other country has been so unique in these two respects.
Without it there are no moral absolutes; for example, have a look at "pederasty" in wikipedia and see good solid arguments for legalising it.
PB
PB
the demographics of our nation are moving away increasingly further from a majority of practising christians. Why then should the guiding principles not become more secular?
For it to be otherwise would be non democratic.
I appreciate that this shift will raise dilemmas and cause problems, but I think of them as akin to growing pains.
The state and the churches should be separated completely.
This statue is superior to the one in Manhatten.
Re 11 Gee Dubyah wrote:
"The demographics of our nation are moving away increasingly further from a majority of practising christians."
See also post 9 part 2 ....
Gee: You have a growing minority of fundamentalist muslims in the UK. This group will never allow muslim children to be adopted into Christian homes, gay or heterosexual. Then what?
Regards,
Michael
Michael
RE 13.
How are the muslim fundamentalists in a position to stop a given adoption? A proper divorce of state and religion will put paid to the interference of churches of any faith in these matters. Churches minister to their congregations - a child in state care is not a member of any congregation.
New morality is false terminology, it is political correctness gone mad to please all the sinners of our society.
In 14 Gee Dubyah wrote:
"How are the muslim fundamentalists in a position to stop a given adoption?"
I don't think any muslim (fundamentalist or otherwise) is permitted to convert or be subjected to possible conversion to Judaism or Christianity. I may be wrong, and someone else might wish to comment on this, but I would be surprised to find an example where a muslim child in either the USA or UK has been placed in a non-muslim family.
If I am correct on this, then how will one be able to justify placing a RC baptized child with a homosexual couple?
Regards,
Michael