There you go, Bill, letting people be unethical again...
Eugene Volokh, a First Amendment provocateur, notes that Minn. Stat. Ann. § 211B.07 makes it a gross misdemeanor to
“….directly or indirectly use or threaten force, coercion, violence, restraint, damage, harm, loss, including loss of employment or economic reprisal, undue influence, or temporal or spiritual injury against an individual to compel the individual to vote for or against a candidate or ballot question.“
The professor opines that the spiritual injury part, at least, is unconstitutional. Interesting.
Prohibiting the interference and manipulation of a human being’s rights of autonomy and self-determination by using threats to compel his voting choices is a legitimate area for the law, because ethics is notoriously inadequate at preventing electoral abuses. It is also an area where the law is an especially blunt instrument, and many conceivable violations of § 211B.07 would seem to risk colliding with free speech. “If you don’t vote for Ron Paul, I’ll never speak to you again!” comes to mind. The threat of “spiritual harm”—“Vote for Mitt Romney, my flock, or I condemn you to Hell!” adds the free exercise of religion to the mix, particularly when the threat is linked to a position of a candidate that violates religious doctrine.
I have no difficulty concluding that any and all threats to force a citizen to vote according to another citizen’s desires are wrongful and damaging to democracy, and should be condemned and discouraged to the maximum extent possible. Ethical though such prohibitions may be, some, like the use of threatened spiritual injury, are impossible under the Bill of Rights.
So threatening to send someone to Hell if they vote for Newt Gingrich—a reasonable result, when you think about it—is unethical, but a law punishing that threat is unconstitutional.
Sorry, Ethics…looks like it’s all up to you!
Ethics Alarms 
For the record, the vote-or-damned crowd is the one against Romney. There’s material to be had against us (hell, even electoral material); that particular variety doesn’t quite apply.
I think they crop up in every election for/against every candidate, though anti-Romney is larger than usual for a christian candidate in the Republican primaries.
It’s too bad. You can severely damage a person’s psychi,possibly disabling them by your manipulating in this way. I remember my grandfather,who became a Christian as a young man and attended a hard core charismatic church,was told by his pastor that alcoholism was the unforgivable sin. Papa was in hopelessness and despair,being a recovering alcoholic until he read the Bible for himself and discovered that he’d been lied to.
(More evidence that faith is dangerous)
Only in the wrong hands. You can’t judge an entire system by what a few bizarre off shoots do. Or do you believe that Jesus Himself was dangerous?
I don’t follow your argument. It’s dangerous and doesn’t have any singularly redeeming qualities. It’s not like guns, which are a pretty necessary evil.
Jesus himself? If he existed, then it really depends on how much of the gospels you believe apply. The straight ethics lessons (turning the other cheek, giving to the poor first, etc) were good. The son of God stuff? Most definitely dangerous.
Jefferson’s Jesus? Not dangerous. Any Jesus where himself has to be capitalized? Dangerous.
Well,I don’t think believing in Jesus is dangerous. I choose to be “religious” whether or not you like it and my belief doesn’t affect you one way or the other. I cannot speak for others and what they do with their belief. I’m not going to hurt you or try to make you live as I think you should so I don’t see how my being religious is a danger to you or anyone else.
It’s not just your specific beliefs, it’s the justification of belief without evidence. If you say that your beliefs (must be respected/cannot be attacked/have to be considered valid) because they are based on faith, then the same goes for all other religious beliefs of individuals or groups:
* the people who believe Jesus said we need to kill the gays,
* the people who follow Allah’s teachings to kill infidels and imprison women for being raped,
* the people who want to ban shellfish,
* the congressmen who think that economics, ecology, sociology, and world politics don’t matter, as God will save us no matter what we do.
You, personally, are not dangerous. It’s the consequences of your “logic” that are dangerous.
A belief doesn’t have to be religious to be “illogical” or dangerous. An atheist can believe that religion is an opiate of the people and institutionalize all religious people. An ideology can mandate sterilization of women in it’s belief that population control necessitates it.People’s rights and freedom taken away “for the greater good” up to and including extermination.
You missed the point. It’s not “religion” that’s a problem compared to other ideologies. It’s justification of belief without evidence that’s a problem. It just so happens that religion is (wrongly) considered a protected class, while sterilization of women and institutionalization of religious people are (correctly) not.
If I made a case for institutionalization of all religious people, it would be destroyed for lack of evidence that this is beneficial and by the evidence of the harm that would be caused… but if you demand that I grant you your religious beliefs, I’m within my rights to demand that you grant me my institutionalization beliefs, despite the lack of evidence. You can’t argue against it being just and right that all religious people be rounded up and institutionalized. At least, you can’t without being a hypocrite.
“but if you demand that I grant you your religious beliefs, I’m within my rights to demand that you grant me my institutionalization beliefs, despite the lack of evidence.”
That is so bogus. My belief does no harm. Your institutionalizing me for it does. Why should you care what I believe? It’s no skin off your nose. So you think it’s illogical.So you think there’s no evidence. Does that give you the right to thought police me? Your arrogance knows no bounds. Must I believe as you do to be an acceptable member of society? Isn’t that what you accuse Christians of doing? The point is not justification of belief but freedom to think and believe as I choose as far as it isn’t harmful to others or infringes on their rights.
Some people are vegetarians. They believe they shouldn’t eat meat for various reasons such as an animal is equally valued as a human. Do I believe that? No. Can they prove it? No. Do they force me to believe that? No. Should I institutionalize them? No.
That is so bogus. My belief does no harm. Your institutionalizing me for it does. Why should you care what I believe? It’s no skin off your nose.
As noted, it’s not the belief that causes harm, it’s the justification of belief without evidence.
How do you argue against my position that all the religious should be institutionalized? Say it causes pain? Doesn’t matter, my faith says it’s better. Say it violates your rights? Doesn’t matter, my faith says the relgious don’t have the right to be free.
This is my point. If faith is enough, then faith is enough, no matter how benign or harmful the idea is.
So you think it’s illogical.So you think there’s no evidence.
If there was evidence to justify the belief, then it wouldn’t be a problem because it wouldn’t be justifying faith.
Does that give you the right to thought police me?
I have never suggested such.
Your arrogance knows no bounds.
Not my arrogance. Your arrogance. You demand respect for your belief, but refuse to grant my example belief the same respect. I don’t grant respect to beliefs.
Must I believe as you do to be an acceptable member of society?
No. I don’t believe I have ever claimed such.
Isn’t that what you accuse Christians of doing?
I accuse some of such, when I believe they are doing so. I don’t believe you are doing so.
The point is not justification of belief but freedom to think and believe as I choose as far as it isn’t harmful to others or infringes on their rights.
You have the freedom to think and believe as you choose. No one is taking that away. What you don’t have is a right for your belief to not be criticized, or a right to be free from consequences. You have the right to believe whatever you want, but nothing you believe can change the implications of your belief. In this case, your justification of faith has negative consequences. You don’t have a right to make them go away, though you do have the freedom to pretend they don’t exist.
Some people are vegetarians. They believe they shouldn’t eat meat for various reasons such as an animal is equally valued as a human. Do I believe that? No. Can they prove it? No. Do they force me to believe that? No. Should I institutionalize them? No.
If the vegetarians believed that animals are equal to humans on faith and claim their faith is protected, then they are just as much a problem as religious people who do the same thing. If someone makes that point here, I will attack them just as much. If the vegetarians aren’t ignoring evidence and are using reason (Say, 1. causing pain is bad. 2. animals feel pain. 3. eating animals means causing them pain. therefore, eating animals is wrong), then there’s just a difference of opinion… ideas to be discussed and see what is supported. So long as neither side retreats to faith and demands it be respected, we don’t reach the issue I have been talking about.
“You have the freedom to think and believe as you choose. No one is taking that away. ”
Thank you. That’s all I ask. I don’t require that you respect my beliefs or not criticize them. Just don’t try to force me to give them up.
In this country practice of one’s religion is protected by the 1st Amendment and even if that were to change I would still practice my religion. At that time if you believed I should be locked up then you would get your wish.
I don’t require that you respect my beliefs or not criticize them. Just don’t try to force me to give them up.
Have I tried to force you to give them up? I’ve simply criticized them and the consequences of them.
In this country practice of one’s religion is protected by the 1st Amendment and even if that were to change I would still practice my religion.
The first amendment protects your religious beliefs from the government, not from individuals. I believe I’m in within my legal rights to use dirty tricks to try to get you to give up your beliefs. Of course, that’d be unethical, and I wouldn’t do it.
At that time if you believed I should be locked up then you would get your wish.
I don’t actually believe believers should be locked up. That was just an example to show the danger of giving justification to faith without evidence. A way to put you on the side of reason, and see that if faith were considered valid, we wouldn’t have a way to fight horribly incorrect harmful ideas.
“Have I tried to force you to give them up? I’ve simply criticized them and the consequences of them.”
I didn’t mean you personally but generally speaking.
“I believe I’m in within my legal rights to use dirty tricks to try to get you to give up your beliefs. Of course, that’d be unethical, and I wouldn’t do it.”
Yes but there are people who would like to use legal means to overthrow the right to practice one’s religion. I’m glad to know you are not among them and you would not use dirty tricks against me.
“horribly incorrect harmful ideas.”
Let’s assume that is correct about religion. Why are you fixated on religion when there are other areas of belief that would fit that discription such as eugenics? If a religion is truly harmful then I’m with you. Say,one that promotes hate and suffering. No one should be allowed to commit crimes because it’s their “religion.”
“Have I tried to force you to give them up? I’ve simply criticized them and the consequences of them.”
I didn’t mean you personally but generally speaking.
Can you give me one example where your first amendment rights were violated by someone trying to force you to give up your religion? Based on this thread, it only counts if the person wasn’t trying to convert you to another religion. This is a red herring that gets thrown around. “They’re trying to force us to give up our religion!” but there aren’t even one off events if this occurring, much less a pattern.
Yes but there are people who would like to use legal means to overthrow the right to practice one’s religion.
Yes. In this country, they’re pretty much all christians.
“horribly incorrect harmful ideas.”
Let’s assume that is correct about religion. Why are you fixated on religion when there are other areas of belief that would fit that discription such as eugenics?
I wasn’t actually saying that religion is horribly incorrect there. I was saying that validation of belief without evidence validates even horrible ideas, whatever they may be.
I’m anti-eugenics, too. But how often does eugenics come up? Does it have alot of proponents? It’s not that I’m fixated on religion. I’m against anything that validates invalid logic and stupid ideas. Religion just happens to be the overwhelming majority purveyor of validation of faith.
If a religion is truly harmful then I’m with you. Say,one that promotes hate and suffering. No one should be allowed to commit crimes because it’s their “religion.”
You say you’re with me, but once you’ve granted faith as enough reason for a neutral/good belief to be valid, you’ve forfeited the fight on the horrible hate and suffering issue. They simply come back and say “I have faith that this is the right thing to do.” If it’s good for the goose, then it’s good for the gander.
Teeg,I know there is at least one group that is active against religion. I heard them on the radio but I can’t remember their organization’s name. I had them in mind when I said there are people who work within the legal framework to try and abolish religion. If there were no such people that I knew of I wouldn’t have said there were.
On the last point,I think you would agree that most people have an innate conception of right and wrong. Only when your conscience is seared do you lose the ability to know good from evil and a kooky religion,mental illness, or any type of brainwashing/desensitizing could cause this. It isn’t natural to do bad things. If your religion tells you to then that religion is wrong.
Teeg,I know there is at least one group that is active against religion. I heard them on the radio but I can’t remember their organization’s name. I had them in mind when I said there are people who work within the legal framework to try and abolish religion. If there were no such people that I knew of I wouldn’t have said there were.
I’ve extremely active against religion. There’s a difference between being zealous and using force. This is also the kind of cite I’m using to: “I heard this group once,” “It happened at this unnamed conference by unnamed people,” etc…
Are you sure the group wasn’t just trying to keep religion out of government? Like the MRFF or SSA? On religious programs, groups like those tend to be improperly characterized as wanting to stop people from being able to pray or make them give up their religion. Take the Cranston Prayer Banner issue. A student asks for a religious prayer banner to be removed from her school. When the school refuses, she sues, wins, and gets characterized as trying to make it so people can’t pray in school.
On the last point,I think you would agree that most people have an innate conception of right and wrong. Only when your conscience is seared do you lose the ability to know good from evil and a kooky religion,mental illness, or any type of brainwashing/desensitizing could cause this. It isn’t natural to do bad things. If your religion tells you to then that religion is wrong.
Even If I grant all that, it’s irrelevant. If you can justify good beliefs based on faith, then bad beliefs can be equally justified.
“Are you sure the group wasn’t just trying to keep religion out of government?”
No,that’s why they stood out to me. I’m aware of the many groups whose mission it is to keep religion out of government.
“Even If I grant all that, it’s irrelevant. If you can justify good beliefs based on faith, then bad beliefs can be equally justified.”
You can’t justify evil if you believe God is good. If you do then the entity you serve isn’t God and your faith is misplaced. Any faith that embraces evil doesn’t have the right to exist since it is harmful to others. A faith that embraces good will be a benefit to society as it wants to do only good to others. Evil is justified only in the minds of those who do it. Good doesn’t need justification.
Are you sure the group wasn’t just trying to keep religion out of government?”
No,that’s why they stood out to me. I’m aware of the many groups whose mission it is to keep religion out of government.
As I said, the unnamed org is a common cannard. Without more information, this isn’t even anecdotal.
“Even If I grant all that, it’s irrelevant. If you can justify good beliefs based on faith, then bad beliefs can be equally justified.”
You can’t justify evil if you believe God is good.
Counterexample: God is good, so of course he wouldn’t command me to do evil. Therefore, my killing of gays must not be evil.
If you do then the entity you serve isn’t God and your faith is misplaced.
Try the “your faith is misplaced” argument with anyone, and see how well that works. You need an independent standards of good and evil that does not involve God for this to work.
Any faith that embraces evil doesn’t have the right to exist since it is harmful to others.
Really? Are you the arbiter of what people can believe now? We’re back to the arrogance again.
A faith that embraces good will be a benefit to society as it wants to do only good to others.
An idiot who embraces good can do a whole lot of damage to society.
Evil is justified only in the minds of those who do it. Good doesn’t need justification.
Define good and evil. You can’t rely on faith or God, as you’re trying to differentiate faith that leads to good from faith that leads to bad.
“You can’t justify evil if you believe God is good.
Counterexample: God is good, so of course he wouldn’t command me to do evil. Therefore, my killing of gays must not be evil.”
This is what situational ethics has reduced us to. What is wrong for you is right for me. Bull manure. It’s always wrong to kill and steal.
“Counterexample: God is good, so of course he wouldn’t command me to do evil. Therefore, my killing of gays must not be evil.”
God has outlined what is good and what is evil in the 10 Commandments. It is evil to commit murder.
“Any faith that embraces evil doesn’t have the right to exist since it is harmful to others.
Really? Are you the arbiter of what people can believe now? We’re back to the arrogance again.”
How is it arrogant to say that faith in a god who tells you to murder,rape,etc.is misplaced? You don’t think it is?
“You need an independent standards of good and evil that does not involve God for this to work.”
Here we are with situational ethics again. No standard of good and evil is the problem. Apart from God you have no standards or you have human standards which can go any which way. Maybe it is arrogant for me to believe killing and rape is wrong but I’m glad somebody besides me believes that,like Congress and I don’t give a dang that they get that from the Bible. It still works for me if not you.
This is what situational ethics has reduced us to. What is wrong for you is right for me. Bull manure. It’s always wrong to kill and steal.
I agree., but it’s irrelevant. If you basis for believing it’s wrong is faith, then people can believe it’s right based on the same faith. I keep explaining this point, and you keep ignoring it.
God has outlined what is good and what is evil in the 10 Commandments. It is evil to commit murder.
And your faith tells you the 10 commandments are more important than the laws in leviticus. Someone else’s faith could go the other way.
Really? Are you the arbiter of what people can believe now? We’re back to the arrogance again.”
How is it arrogant to say that faith in a god who tells you to murder,rape,etc.is misplaced? You don’t think it is?
You’re saying that what you believe is good, and it must be because you have faith in God; what they believe is wrong, despite the fact that it’s based on the same faith in God. You’ve made the same mistake 3 times in a row now.
“You need an independent standards of good and evil that does not involve God for this to work.”
Here we are with situational ethics again. No standard of good and evil is the problem.
No, we aren’t, we’re back to “I’m right because I believe God says X, but you’re wrong because you believe God says Y.” Without an independent standard, that’s all you have.
Apart from God you have no standards or you have human standards which can go any which way.
Both can go either way, but if you take faith as valid, then you can’t argue against the bad God-based standards. You can argue against the bad human determined standards.
Maybe it is arrogant for me to believe killing and rape is wrong but I’m glad somebody besides me believes that,like Congress and I don’t give a dang that they get that from the Bible. It still works for me if not you.
I’m absolutely in agreement that killing and rape is wrong, and it’s completely independent about what anyone believes about God. If you learned the bible was mistranslated (or the context was lost) and the XXX commandment really said “thou shalt not kill, but this only applies to men of the same tribe. You can kill others”, would that mean that killing people of other ethnicities was now okay? Of course not. Killing is bad because of the pain, the suffering, the affect on other lives; not because you think God said it was bad. If the only reason it is bad is because God says so, then God could say the opposite and make any clearly unethical behavior good. Killing would still cause pain. It would still end a life, but you’d consider it good.
Your backing of your version of god is based on faith. Muslims have faith in a different god, and they have different ethical standards based on their god. Islamic terrorists and Christian terrorists (think aborition clinic bombers) have their own versions of these gods based on faith. As I keep saying over and over, and you keep ignoring (but not refuting), once you claim that faith is enough evidence for belief, you have no ability to attack someone else’s faith based beliefs. If they say their faith leads them to kill, you can’t say killing is wrong. Killing is bad is based on your god which is based on faith; killing is good is based on their god which is based on equivalent faith.
Okay. Apart from God which standard do we follow as to what is evil and good? Who makes this standard? How do we know he/she is right?
This isn’t a simple question, but here’s an intro. Our standards for good and evil are based on society, our consciences, trial and error, utilitarianism, whatever we human beings can come up with. This blog is a good example of looking at some difficult (and not so difficult) situations, but we’ve been refining our ethics over hundreds of thousands of years. That’s how we got from the standard “men are dominant over women” to “women have all the rights that men do”. Some ages are better than others, and sometimes ethics progress more quickly than at other times (the enlightment was great movement forward, but we’re still trying to bring those values to everyone), but it’s a continual process.
I’m of the opinion that we might not definitively be able to determine absolute right and wrong, but we try our best (It’s a legitimate philosphical point of argument over whether or not there is a standard, and then whether or not we do (or even could) know it). Everytime we look at a situation and ask “is this common practice good?”, we are defining our ethical standards. “Why is interracial marriage icky? Is indentured servitude really a good for the servants? Should we be killing off indigenous peoples?”
There are always people that go against the grain, but we can use our reason, our knowledge of history and humanity to make the case for what is best, and what kinds of consequences should there be for the people who break our standards. We use everything from prison/fines/probation through shunning/disapproval/loss-of-business/loss-of-reputation all the way down to a simple tsk-tsk based on what kind of breach we feel it is.
Which standard do we follow? Our standards.
Who makes this standard? We do, over time, using every tool we have.
How do we know [we’re] right? We don’t. We just do the best we can.
Well said. Do you believe there is an innate sense of right and wrong or do you believe that it is instilled in children by their parents? I think some is innate. For instance,a very young child knows if it is being improperly touched.
I’m drawn to the idea of innate beliefs, but I don’t know how much of that is wishful thinking. For your example, how much is ethics, and how much is “this doesn’t feel right”?
I vaguely remember some studies suggesting that for animals that have social norms that could be considered like ethics, some of them appear to be innate, and some require socialization to be present.
I think there’s strong evidence that, in humans, at least some of it is taught. After that, I’m not sure that it matters, and it’s not like it’d be ethical to test if it’s all taught, if we could even separate out ethics as an independent variable.