Religion and Morality

Philosophers have drawn various contrasts between the two at various times (Kant for example, and Hegel, and more recently R.M. Hare and Bernard Williams). But etymologically, the term ‘moral’ comes from the Latin mos, which means custom or habit, and it is a translation of the Greek ethos, which means roughly the same thing, and is the origin of the term ‘ethics’. In contemporary non-technical use, the two terms are more or less interchangeable, though ‘ethics’ has slightly more flavor of theory, and has been associated with the prescribed practice of various professions (e.g., medical ethics, etc.). In any case, this entry will assume that morality is a set of customs and habits that shape how we think about how we should live or about what is a good human life.

The term ‘religion’ is much disputed. Again, we can learn from the etymology. The origin of the word is probably the Latin religare, to bind back. Not all uses of the term require reference to a divinity or divinities. But this entry will use the term so that there is such a reference, and a religion is a system of belief and practice that accepting a ‘binding’ relation to such a being or beings. This does not, however, give us a single essence of religion, since the conceptions of divinity are so various, and human relations with divinity are conceived so variously that no such essence is apparent even within Western thought. The ancient Greeks, for example, had many intermediate categories between full gods or goddesses and human beings. There were spirits (in Greek daimones) and spiritual beings like Socrates's mysterious voice (daimonion) (Apology, 31d1–4, 40a2–c3). There were heroes who were offspring of one divine and one human parent. There were humans who were deified, like the kings of Sparta. This is just within the culture of ancient Greece. If we included Eastern religions in the scope of the discussion, the hope for finding a single essence of religion would recede further. Probably it is best to understand ‘religion’ as a term for a group of belief/practice amalgams with a family resemblance to each other, but no set of necessary and sufficient conditions tying them together (see Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations, 65–7).

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy


So according to stanfords very carefully crafted word smithing we can see morals are a set of value judgments and those value judgments that are practiced as a religion.

Since todays philosophers like to shroud the word religion in mystery, its best to look at the understanding as it stands in the US Code.


Free Exercise Clause
Free Exercise Clause refers to the section of the First Amendment italicized here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. Free-exercise clauses of state constitutions which protected religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The Clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons. In the terms of economic theory, the Free Exercise Clause promotes a free religious market by precluding taxation of religious activities by minority sects.[3]

Constitutional scholars and even Supreme Court opinions have contended that the two religion clauses are in conflict. E.g., Thomas v. Review Board, 450 U.S. 707 (1981). As mentioned previously, the Free Exercise Clause implies special accommodation of religious ideas and actions, even to the point of exemptions to generally applicable laws. Such a special benefit seems to violate the neutrality between “religion and non-religion” mandated by the Establishment Clause. McConnell explains:
as a little side note here their opinion is that its contradictory and violates neutrality is because they were not intended to adjudicate religious matters and they hijacked it and now find themselves in a pickle.
If there is a constitutional requirement for accommodation of religious conduct, it will most likely be found in the Free Exercise Clause. Some say, though, that it is a violation of the Establishment Clause for the government to give any special benefit or recognition of religion. In that case, we have a First Amendment in conflict with itself—the Establishment Clause forbidding what the Free Exercise Clause requires.[4]

Historically, the Supreme Court has been inconsistent in dealing with this problem. At various times, the Court has either applied a broad or narrow application of the clause.

When the First Amendment was drafted, it applied only to the U.S. Congress. As such, state and local governments could abridge the Free Exercise Clause as long as there was no similar provision in the state constitution. In 1940, the Supreme Court held in Cantwell v. Connecticut that, due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the Free Exercise Clause is enforceable against state and local governments (this act of using the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle through which the Court applies the Bill of Rights to the states is also known as the Incorporation Doctrine).

[1] Michael McConnell, Religion and the Constitution (2002), pg. 105.
[2] Id. at 107.
[3] Richard Posner and Michael McConnell, "An Economic Approach to Issues of Religious Freedom," 56 University of Chicago Law Review 1 (1989).
[4] McConnell, note 1 above, at 102.

Keywords:

Suffice to say religion is:
1) the incorporation of your convictions based upon your beliefs which is your moral base
2) which is your value system or set of values that you live by
3) expressed as customs and habits (action)

Regardless where your beliefs originate were they thought up by yourself or given to you from your God matters not they are your beliefs, convictions, morals, religion.

Hence your
Beliefs Create Morals,
Your Composite Moral foundation creates your religion (exercised)
Which we call habit or custom
Which creates culture when others like your habit or custom and join you.

Since so few people understand the logical progression from belief to religion I thought this might be interesting as a teaching aid for those who confuse religion as a group versus personal religion as an individual. Most of these philosophy courses religion references group versus group, not development within an individual before they become a group.

So if religion is custom and habit how can atheists claim they have none? Do atheists have no habits or customs that are based upon some moral code (which incidentally they refuse to divulge)

So since the atheists here refuse to divulge their values, or morals I was forced to go to atheist international the atheist headquarters and copy their bible commandments:


Values [From atheist central]

1. Reason and rational thought. Reason and rational thought are the basis of logical decision making and essential to address the issues faced by humanity.

2. Science and empiricism. The scientific method is the best tool we have for seeking truth and understanding our world. We make conclusions based on the best available evidence and change our conclusions accordingly as new evidence becomes known.

3. Compassion. Human compassion and empathy are the basis of a cooperative social structure that benefits all people.

4. Purpose. This life is the only life we know we will have and it is up to each of us to utilise it meaningfully.

5. Freedom. All people are entitled to freedom from discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, race, ethnicity and disability. All people are entitled to freedom of conscience. AAI supports the values outlined in the International Convention of Human Rights.

6. Responsibility. Each person is part of a global society and is responsible for humane interaction with other people and animals and for the preservation of our habitable planet.

https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai.html

So this is the atheist religion, so while theist based religions 'bind' to God, atheist religions bind to themselves.

 

I thought that was going to be about whether certain laws are constitutional. I do believe, the more we try to add to the original intent, the less liberty we have and the more confused we all get. This increases anarchy.

If your religion says you cannot do this....then the idea that we have a right to pursue individual happiness is lost when the government forces you to go against your beliefs.

However, what is the correct manner to handle those religions which are contrary to the liberties granted to citizens? What if a religion prosecutes, judges and punishes from within? How does the Constitution protect those rights to pursue happiness?

Do those folks ever have to obey the laws of the government which is not based upon their religion?

I think it's time for someone to address all of these points. These confusions are what fuel anarchy.

 

Well this is about what is religion, for those who do not understand it applies to everyone, both from a philosophical point of view and so important that its recognition is cast in concrete by the bill of rights. They understood it. People today do not because there is an all out war against religion in the US because there are people who understand contracts and what they really mean.

The govmnt hijacked religion, they have no jurisdiction to adjudicate any religious matter what so ever. Contract law 101, if you say you will not ratify unless xyz is added as an amendment first that is called a reserved right. In other words we will agree to your trusteeship as governators if you keep your paws off of religion, speech, arms, privacy etc. The contract says free exercise of religion, not free exercise with permission from the government.

Well that takes us on a tangent, but it stands how important the founders knew these rights are. That message is lost however because its buried in disinformation and drum pounding atheists attacking 'religion' from every angle I presume because they fail to comprehend what it all means.

We shall see what kinds of arguments they come up with to exempt themselves (if they can come up with any) from being as religious as anyone else.

 

What the hell is the OP?
More Giant Blocks of Copied Gibrish, ostensibly but incoherently, in support of religion/superstition: the biggest Conspiracy theory of them all.
Spam city every day.
No conversation, just Borg-like headline Bludgeoning/Burying attempts.
+

 

Oh Im sorry tax but there is more to religion than just 'Lacking'.

 

"I see", said the blind man as he picked up his hammer and sawed. I don't want to argue with atheists. I've done it and won and lost. It's exhausting and the only thing I see as a benefit is for us all to figure a way to live together in peace. I'm not sure that is possible when the laws are a mess of overlapping attempts to make a space for something new. The basics covered all of it. We just don't like personal responsibility.

 

well we have a commerce dept, state and federal law only has legitimate jurisdiction in things related to business, that is what they were established to do. Today religion is under attack by the state when they overlay their commercial discrimnation laws over the top of the peoples reserved rights and force the mormons to obey the state religion under bigamy laws and christian cake bakers from worshiping obeying the religious laws their God set forth for them to follow. The atheist secular state created their own religion in both cases, thereby establishing a statist religion here in the US, when they granted the atheists protection to practice their religion and the mormons and christians rights were trampled over.

The proper thing to do would have been for the govmnt to get out of the religion business altogether and dismiss the cases for lack of jurisdiction but they didnt, they applied their own agenda creating and establishing a religion then enforcing it under penalty of law. There is nothing wrong with arnarchy, it only means lack of givernment not lack of law, it was how this country was designed, to take everything to court every time, not the statutory rubber stamp extortion bs we have today.

So since its atheists causing all the trouble I want to see if they can come up with some good spin to exempt themselves from being classified as a religion.

 

IMO, there is religion and there is spirituality. Spirituality is more personal to the individual. Religion is much larger and organized. One can derive their spirituality from religion, which is probably why there are many.

 

um yes no.
the composite of ones conclusions put into practice is religion which is why we see each culture with a different religion. Within each religion there are individuals each with their religion. Like a nation the individuals join together with those who agree with them to form a group religion. We just watched that with atheists who have now formed churches for themselves.

So yes/no, yes they can derive from an established source, say Buddha, or they can be a free thinker and create their own religion then like the atheists just did become a large group.

and no, a single person has not only their spirituality but also have their own individual religion, its what they compare when they decide which church they want to join.

Everyone has self imposed rules (a guiding moral compass) they live by, that is religion.

 

philosophers like to use the french derivation (definition) of religion, 'To Bind', which in contract law for instance would be the terms and conditions of the agreement.

So religion is to bind yourself to something, be it an established practice or your own 'value' conclusions.

That said, you need something to bind to, some determined course to follow with conviction before you can have a religion which is after the fact.

All people have convictions and value judgments that they follow therefore all people have religion.

 

WOW! Look at that folks the board atheists wont even show up in a thread designed to define religion!

I cant imagine why? Someone want to help me understand why the one of the biggest arguments out here mysteriously goes unnoticed by the atheists?

 

True, there is an attempt to suppress logical thought and force religion in its place.

In other words, a false premise trying to force itself on others.

 

Simple. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall, no understanding or willingness to debate with your own words, merely a continuing parroting of words that you would consider your betters.

 

Atheism does not fit the definition of religion as you have provided it. There is no overarching system of beliefs an practices that applies to atheism as a whole. At best, you could classify the AAI as a religion based on your definition, but not even the AAI claims to speak for atheists as a whole.

 

You said some truth.

 

Thats a well known deceitful debate tactic called 'quote mining'.

Deceitful posters pull a small part of a quote to misrepresent the member being quoted.

I put the whole quote in your response to clear up any misunderstanding resulting from the fraud.

I hope that helps.

We still have dogmatic atheists screaming 'lack of belief' and 'cant prove a negative' despite other atheists with a far better comprehension of logic and reason have corrected them and told them point blank they are wrong in attempts to suppress log and reason, care to explain whythey are doing such things?

On the other hand if we take christianity for instance, and I am not here to argue for theism, but against illogical thought, in christianity God commands that thou shalt not murder, or lie, or steal another stuff, now that all seems extremely thoughtful logical and reasonable to me. Where did you find false premise in that?

Stop licking your wounds, and get on with it, make you point tell us whats illogical about that?

Well lets start here, atheism falls under secular humanism as one of the subsets of 'nontheist' religions and has even been determined by the supreme court to be a religion. Would you deny that all religions start somewhere and atheism in becoming a fad is growing. AAI does represent world wide atheism. Technically the Pope doesnt represent all Christians either so it seems you need to sort that out for us since they list atheist values, same as the Cristian bible lists Christian values?

The word religion is philosophically accepted to mean: to bind, usually or mostly to ones values, either set forth by a deity or in the case of atheists values established by: __________ full in blank please, but everyone has values do they not?

 

You have it backwards. Atheism doesn't fall under secular humanism. Secular humanism falls under atheism. Not all atheists are secular humanists. There are atheists who are nihilists, anti-humanist, etc.

Atheism is growing in the modern age, largely because it is only in modern history that it has been safe to publicly identify as an atheist. But yes, it is growing. But no, atheism is not an overarching system of beliefs and practices.

It doesn't even claim to represent all atheists. At all.

Of course not. Who is saying he does?

Those values are not shared by all atheists. Nor do they even claim those values are shared by all atheists. You are jumping to a conclusion that they don't even promote themselves. As for the Bible, it contains conflicting values. But even then, where is the list of values shared by all theists? That would be more comparable to a list of values shared by all atheists than would a list of values shared by all Christians.

 

Religion however has nothing to do with how conflicting the values are or not.

So then what you are trying to claim here boils down to, in order for atheism to be a religion every line item by line item must be corporately agreed upon by every atheist in the world before atheism can be classified as a religion? You arent trying to say atheists have no values are you?

 

But your definition mentioned a system of beliefs and practices. If there is conflict, then it isn't so much a system.

I'm saying that, in order for atheism to meet the definition you provided, there would have to be a common system of belief and practice throughout atheism. Atheism is not a system of belief and/or practice, so it doesn't actually meet your definition of a religion. There could, under your definition, be individual atheist religions, but atheism itself wouldn't be a religion.

No. Not at all. I'm saying there is no one atheist system of beliefs and practices. There is no one system of values that atheists share. Same for theism. Which is why theism also doesn't meet your definition of a religion, even though there are individual theist religions. Theism, itself, isn't a system of beliefs and practices.

 

You pull a quote out thin air and claim some kind of moral high ground. Not exactly a telling argument and fraught falsehoods, but that is to be expected.

BTW, you really should take a course on logic. It does not say what you claim.

 

You are assuming I mean on a corporate level, I do not, I mean on a personal level, though I am sure even on a personal level people have conflicts with their own system and constantly update and shift their religion accordingly.

I had this argument with joe, the ism or the label in itself is not the religion, however the belief structure that thae label idenitfies, the beliefs and the foundation that folllows the ism (take your pick) is the religion.

When the attributes that follow the label are put into practice it demonstrates a 'binding' conviction which is the attributes of religion, same for atheists, or any ism.

Atheists have lots of beliefs in common;
murder is wrong and as a result of their system of beliefs that they label atheist they refrain from committing murder in practice. Stealing? Etc?

Could not the same be said for christians? Look how many different christian sects there are, and they are all religions.

 

You have a problem because a few of your comrades that have taken logic course agree with me.

What does not say what? Quote out of thin air? What are you trying to say?

 

Then your argument is incorrect. "Atheism is a religion" is on the corporate level. If you mean on a personal level, the correct formulation would be "That atheist is religious."

But if there are conflicts within the system, it isn't a true system.

Not all atheists believe murder is wrong, just as not all theists believe murder is wrong. Same for stealing, etc.

 

I think atheism is a spiritual belief. Wanna call that a religion, okay.

Not bad for a set of "commandments" and the extent of atheist "religious" dogma.

Be excellent to each other.

 

I used the words 'in common' not all, 'in common' does not mean 'all', the point is 'all' are not required to be validly designated as a system.

thats another all or nothing again reduction to the absurd.

and once again your changing "thing in common" to 'ALL' - 'NONE'.


Not all theists believe the same but they are considered a religion accordingly.