Moral Percentage
A new Gallup poll is out entitled: Americans Rate the Morality of 16 Social Issues
It appears in the article that the main topics are the death penalty and assisted suicide. The May 10-13 polls concluded that 66% verses 27% of Americans are in favor of the death penalty claiming it is “morally acceptable” whereas the moral issue of doctor-assisted suicide is closer divided by 49% “morally acceptable” to 44% “morally wrong”.
Also interesting is that in the case of the death penalty they found “Support for the death penalty is fairly uniform across different age groups, political parties, and between men and women” whereas in the case of doctor-assisted suicide they found “While a majority of whites, Democrats, and liberals consider doctor-assisted suicide to be morally acceptable, a majority of nonwhites, Republicans, and conservatives call it morally wrong”.
Here is just some interesting points I found with the poll, take them how you will:
49% of Americans find doctor-assisted suicide morally acceptable, yet 78% find that suicide is morally wrong. Why is it okay for suicide with a doctor and not without one?
It appears in the article that the main topics are the death penalty and assisted suicide. The May 10-13 polls concluded that 66% verses 27% of Americans are in favor of the death penalty claiming it is “morally acceptable” whereas the moral issue of doctor-assisted suicide is closer divided by 49% “morally acceptable” to 44% “morally wrong”.
Also interesting is that in the case of the death penalty they found “Support for the death penalty is fairly uniform across different age groups, political parties, and between men and women” whereas in the case of doctor-assisted suicide they found “While a majority of whites, Democrats, and liberals consider doctor-assisted suicide to be morally acceptable, a majority of nonwhites, Republicans, and conservatives call it morally wrong”.
Here is just some interesting points I found with the poll, take them how you will:
49% of Americans find doctor-assisted suicide morally acceptable, yet 78% find that suicide is morally wrong. Why is it okay for suicide with a doctor and not without one?
65% of Americans find divorce morally acceptable, yet 91% find that having an affair is morally wrong. I wonder what the ratio of affair/non-affair causes of divorce is. Also does one move from the 91% to the 65% when they get a divorce on the basis of an affair?
59% of Americans say that sex between an unmarried man and woman is morally acceptable, yet 90% find that a husband having more than one wife (polygamy) is morally wrong. If the unmarried man has more than one sex partner would that not be the same or “more” morally wrong due to the fact at least the polygamist does marry and support the women.
64% of Americans say that stem cell research from human embryos is morally acceptable, yet 51% find that abortion is moral wrong. So we are moving away from moral acceptance of abortion of fertilized eggs carried in a womb, but toward moral acceptance of the dismemberment of those which are without.
The poll at the end shows the difference between liberal, moderate, and conservative.
The poll “Results are based on telephone interviews with 1,003 national adults, aged 18 and older, conducted May 10-13, 2007”, so you will have to decide how you believe this shows the entirety of the America population.
What causes these moral ideas in Americans? Who can say which side (acceptable/wrong) is right? Can we judge one above the other or is it all relative? By what authority is acceptance or wrong of moral behavior judged?
Without acceptance of the moral laws of God can there be any moral absolutes?
31 comments:
Check out this poll of where Americans believe our morals are now and where they are headed.
When God is not the standard, the stats are always skewed.
Peace
Neva
Yawn. Wake up and smell the coffee. Absolute morals do not exist.
IF they do, we'd be still keeping slaves, keeping women in a leash, and stoning disobedient children to death, which is exactly what the bible wants anyway.
Honestly beast,
Isn’t saying there are no absolutes actually using an absolute to prove/say there are no absolutes?
You mention slaves, but we are enslaved to the government. Try not paying your taxes, even on a home and property that you own and rightful paid in full.
You mention women on a leash, but we have governors making it mandatory that all girls at a certain age get certain vaccines. Are the vaccines good or not is not the issue, the leash that says they must get it is the enslavement part.
You mention stoning children, but we kill babies every day in abortion clinics. Also note as previously found there are atheists against abortion also.
I have heard the cry about how bad the Bible is, but I ask, what has been solved by saying there are no absolute morals?
Beast, what is wrong with slavery, keeping women on a leash, and stoning disobedient children?
Big Yawn again. Wake up and smell the coffee again, for goodness sake.
When I say there is no fire in the kitchen, am I using fire to prove that there is no fire in the kitchen?
I am merely giving a negative statement to a comment, so how can I be using anything to prove something else????
There is a reason why there is mandatory vaccinations, unless, of course, you prove yourself allergic to any of these. These vaccines are medical advances designed to protect you. If this is slavery, I wonder if those white masters ever bother about the healths of their indignant black slaves???
Abortion is not baby killing, for goodness sake. Fetuses, no more than a collection of cells, cannot be considered babies any more than the skin cells of your body.
Don't like abortion? Simple. Use condoms.
By saying that there are no absolute morals, it doesn't mean that morals don't apply. It simply means comparing certain moral values and picking the one that fits best in society.
Oh, as for paying for taxes, well, you belong to the club called the United States of America, so you are obliged to pay taxes.
Don't wanna pay? Simple. Live somewhere else.
It simply means comparing certain moral values and picking the one that fits best in society.
But how and who decides which morals are best?
Society decides, just as they have always done on issues such as slavery, apartheid, feminism, and other forms of emancipation.
What part of society? The majority? We never have 100%.
But what does society base their judgement on? Simply by what each individual does or does not won't done to them?
Let's take the example of homosexuality since it is currently a large issue.
If currently the majority feels it is morally wrong for a marriage of two men or two women, why are the majority being told to accept and change to conformed to the minority?
I am not talking about the hate speech and things. I am simply saying why is the majority told they should accept homosexuality and their unions as morally right (or okay) if the majority feels it is morally wrong?
What part of society decides what is right and wrong?
When issues such as slavery are concerned, there is always the eternal battle between the liberals and the conservatives.
There is no fixed known method as to how society decides such issues, although it is save to say that over time, social acceptance for certain phenomenons change, such as the gradual assimilation of blacks from a slave outcast to the general populace, for example.
In short, as society evolves, general perception changes, which brings about changes in moral and social values.
as society evolves, general perception changes, which brings about changes in moral and social values.
I agree over time society has changed, but I can't say I agree with all of the changes.
But what about slavery since you mentioned it. In history it was apparently morally right, but today it is morally wrong, so can anyone actually look back into history and say they were wrong when it was actually then morally right?
You see what I am saying? Can or how can we judge someone of the past on our standard of morals today when they are all relative and change with society?
The thing is this: What Christians deem as "right and wrong" concepts can actually exist in different shades of grey.
I think that certain issues, like slavery, has to go through different social stages. First, people need to empathize with the pride of slaves, then a few people begin a civil rights movement, and then the movement becomes a lobby group and so on.
Morality is a relative thing, that is correct. Every society and its secular law determines what is socially and morally acceptable. There has never been any fixed code of morals.
Even so-called absolute laws, such as murder, can be exempted if the accused can be proven to be mentally incapacitated at the time of the crime, or in the case of war or self defense.
My question is this.
If the majority believe that homosexuality is morally wrong today, why should that ever change?
(we could take another issue, but homosexuality is a larger issue that slavery today.)
If the minority (okay) today is telling the majority (wrong) to accept what is morally wrong (homosexuality) to be morally right today --if homosexuality ever does become majority morally okay-- would it be fair to say that the minority (wrong) should also be able to speak and press the majority (okay) to return to homosexuality being morally wrong?
In a free society, anyone is allowed to speak freely as he or she pleases, and that includes the minority.
You can bitch and cry hue about homosexuals all you want, but consider this questions:
1. Two male gays sodomizing each other in the privacy of their rooms: Does that harm anyone? Are you affected by their acts???
2. If gays want to marry, does that in any way harm society beyond what is already factual, that gays have always existed?
Social trends today are such that they are never dictated by some stupid scripture: Really it is a sense of how society perceives harm, and if such trends are anything to go by, civilization will become more and more liberal, which again is a good thing.
So the moral issue changes with homosexuality?
So we aren't supposed to look at it as a morally okay or morally wrong act, but simply ask will it hurt me personally or make society worse?
For society to say homosexuality is morally wrong, why do they need to ask whether it harms them personally or society more or less?
What good can moral acceptance of homosexuality bring?
For one thing, the acceptance of homosexuality breeds tolerance, which can only be a good thing.
100 years ago, people in America were intolerant of blacks, Jews and other minority races. Today, this kind of tolerance would hardly be accepted as mainstream.
Like I said in my previous posts, religious morality, which is a form of absolute morality, cannot possibly exist in society, because it stems from dogma. Relative Morality works because it takes into consideration of other factors, such as harming others and society, so relative morality is a better option.
Like I said, modern society has improved morally, not as you claim otherwise, because we have become more tolerant towards a number of groups of people. Unlike the religious-slanted eras, such as the Inquisitions, we are not likely to condemn atheists or other infidels to torture chambers simply because we do not believe in some stupid god. Women today have significantly better chances at work and at school than they were 100 years ago. We have better sanitation, better hygiene, better health care, and people are living longer. If this is bad morality then I wouldn't know what kind of morality you are talking about.
We have more rights than there ever was since Christianity, the virus of mankind, first took root, and really, if the indications are anything to go by, I see human civilization moving towards the gradual path or less religiousity and more enlightened, reasonable thinking.
For one thing, the acceptance of homosexuality breeds tolerance, which can only be a good thing.
But aren't you asking for tolerance of that which has always and is currently considered morally wrong?
Why should acceptance and tolerance be given to something already deemed morally wrong?
We wouldn't ask for tolerance or moral acceptance for murderers and rapist and child abusers, which society also deems as morally wrong.
As for race, people cannot choose race, they can choose hetero or homo sexual lifestyles.
So when a person freely decides to go against society's majority declare that homosexuality is morally wrong, why should they be given tolerance and/or acceptance?
Shouldn't they conformed to the morals of society which would actually keep society from fighting over an already decided issue?
Homosexuality has never "always" been wrong.
In fact, in many cultures, such as the ancient Chinese, it was perfectly legal for gay couples to cohabit together, provided that they marry a woman in their later years so that they have children.
In ancient Greece, gays were actually rather accepted too.
It is mostly the Judain religion that provides a stigma to this gay phenomenon. Most cultures that exist even in ancient times are actually rather tolerant towards other sexual orientations.
Murderers and rapists are in a whole different league altogether. For you to even suggest that murderers and gays are in the same league as gays shows me how much brainwashing you have been subjected to by the Baptist Church (Which I understand, since I come from a similar background).
The idea that gays can somehow "change" their sexual orientation is quite nonsense: Why don't you try to change your sexual tastes? It is easier to say than to actually do it, because one's taste for sex is actually more or less ingrained into his brain, either through upbringing, genes or the combination of both.
The issue here is not whether gays can change their sexual orientations: It is why gays are being subjected to such intolerance from stupid moronic christians who have problems with atheists, gays, Muslims and other people who do not share their silly beliefs.
The gay issue has never really been a "settled" issue, as far as gays are concerned. There will always be gays, there will always be alternative lifestyles, and it is Christians like you who should keep your bullshit beliefs to yourself and not impose them on anyone else.
Beast
My point of bringing in the "Murderers and rapists" was of morality only.
I realize for the homosexual, the issue of homosexuality and morality will never be settled. For the homosexual will always consider homosexuality a morally acceptible lifestyle, but there will always be those which do not.
Why would you suggest that "Christians like you who should keep your bullshit beliefs to yourself and not impose them on anyone else" when actually here in the US it is majority deemed that homosexuality is morally wrong?
Why shouldn't the homosexuals stop imposing their views on the majority that hold the lifestyle as morally wrong? Are they not imposing their acceptance of a lifestyle on persons that do not accept their lifestyle?
Or they not saying that those who see homosexuality as morally wrong to change their minds and accept and tolerate what society deems as morally wrong?
To say Christians and those that believe homosexuality is morally wrong needs to stop imposing their beliefs on others equally means that you believe the homosexuals should stop imposing their beliefs on the majority.
Why can't they go about their lifestyles without demanding the US accept that which it deems as morally wrong?
Actually, the gay community is fighting on both fronts:
1. To stop discrimination against gays.
2. To decriminalize sodomy, which is successful at least on the Federal level in the States (In Singapore, sodomy is punishable).
The issue here is that the gays are not imposing any sort of lifestyle. Unlike Christians who are constantly haranguing people to convert to their stupid beliefs, gays are not telling people to be gays.
Rather, all they are asking for is to be treated humanely, equally, without discrimination. Is that too much to ask for? I think not.
The majority of Americans who oppose gays, but it doesn't make the discrimination right. 150 years ago the majority of white America wants to subjugate blacks, but that doesn't make it right.
As I have reiterated many times, society will always progress towards the trend of decriminalizing minorities, and that, to me, is moral progress, not regress.
To be frank with you, Splinter, religious fundamentalism in America is actually restricted to a minority.
Most Americans who profess to be "Christian" hardly ever read the bible, go to church regularly, or even have a coherent opinion about the church.
The ones you see crying for the deaths of gays include Fred Phelps (Damn these Baptists always produce morons like this), who incidentally also praise God for the deaths of American troops, Ted Haggard, who for all his homophobia, shared meth and butt with a gay prostitute (so much for Christian morality....phew!), and Mr Fatty Falwell, the idiot who actually blamed Americans and the ACLU for 911......
If these people are the supposed bastions of Christian morality, I would suggest you ditch Christianity and become a Satanist instead.
Most Americans who profess to be "Christian" hardly ever read the bible, go to church regularly, or even have a coherent opinion about the church.
I agree this may be true, but in reality it doesn't change a single thing about God, Scripture, Christianity, or fallen man.
One may judge all of Christianity by the actions of the "big" names that make it into the media (whether good or bad), but it doesn't make each individual less responsible to God for their own actions.
Jesus Christ is the example of Christianity, although we who claim to be saved should strive to be obedient to His Word, but only Christ is perfect without sin.
So if someone has no desire to know God or be a Christian, then they have that right, but don't claim they do not desire to be a Christian because someone who claims to be a Christian falls short of a standard which the atheist does not hold to be authoritative anyway.
The thing is this: I find Christianity to be full of hypocrisy, and Christians in general are either wilfully ignorant or just plain hypocritical.
Take your case, for example. You claim that evolution is false. But yet you would use evolution to justify biblical myth. That, to me, is intellectual dishonesty.
Christians claim that it is not they, but their God who judges, yet not a day goes by without me reading some christian sect condemning gays, secular education, atheists and other people who do not agree with their creeds.
Christianity itself is so full of bullshit, I can spend the entire day writing about it and still not finish it.
My conclusion is this: Most Christians fall short of the moral compasses, and that includes you, which they set themselves up with, which is not surprising, since the bible itself was never a good moral code to begin with.
So you follow your code of ethnics (by whatever authority you have chosen them) without wavering?
Are you suggesting that Christians are the only hypocrites or do you sometimes show hypocrisy to that which you hold as your own standard of character, morals, etc.?
You truly failed to see my point with the evolution in Noah’s ark didn’t you? I wrote “Why not consider your microevolution”. You believe in evolution (micro and macro), so I simply suggested why your belief in evolution would not allow you to believe that evolution took place after the ark. You simply stated because it takes millions of years. You even acknowledged that I may have suggested it, but I did not demand or claim it as so. I even wrote “I could be wrong, maybe every type of bear was on the ark. I wouldn't have a problem with that either.”
Is the acceptance of microevolution within species make one hypocritical for at the same time denying macroevolution of species developing into other species? No. They are not synonymous terms.
As for judging, it is God who judges the heart, but man is to judge acts. One of your atheist buddies favorite quotes are, “You will know them by their fruit”.
There are those that sit around all day debunking the ideas of non-theists also, so sitting around claiming to debunk Christianity on the basis of how Christians act or don’t act really has no bearing on the validly of Scripture or the Holiness of God and the love of our Savior Jesus Christ.
How many atheists fall short of their own expectations or the expectations of their peers? Quite a few, I am sure you have seen them in the blogs you visit. I have.
So all we have proven here is that mankind is apparently unable to hold that which he deems to be correct all the time, we fall short, this is why we need a Savior that can forgive us of our sin and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
"Is the acceptance of microevolution within species make one hypocritical for at the same time denying macroevolution of species developing into other species?"
My answer: No. Using macro evolution, which you claim you do not believe, to justify Noah's bullshit, yes.
To be honest, the majority of atheists I meet online and offline are more morally astute than Christians. Even the worst ones do not delude themselves like you do.
It is not "my code of ethics", Mr Splinter. It is a libertarian's code of ethics, a code more or less embraced by secular law and most reasonable members of the public. If you want absolute, religious laws, why not move out of your home and live in Afghanistan, where homosexuals are executed without fail, women are punished for exposing an ankle, and thieves having limbs amputated for their crimes? Sounds great to you?
Fuck the Savior, Splinter. Jesus was a pathetic moron who died because he was too stupid to shut his bloody trap. If he had a grave I would have spitted on it draw graffiti on his tombstone just for kicks.
As suspected you only see what you want to see. I never claimed macroevolution was the scriptural account of Noah's ark. I clearly used the term microevolution, but you may believe what you will.
the majority of atheists I meet online and offline are more morally astute than Christians
I fail to see what this statement could be based on with your belief that there are no moral absolutes and that morals can change from person to person, society to society, and generation to generation.
Your cursing of the Savior whom came to die that man may live only shows your human depravity and sin nature rejecting the truth found in the gospel of Jesus Christ. I am not singling you out, we all have this sin nature and without the Spirit speaking to our spirit, quickening us, and we accepting Christ by faith man stays blinded to the truth.
I pray the Lord will save you before the judgement that you will not have to face Him in your current hatred for Him and His Word. I honestly wish you would.
1. "As suspected you only see what you want to see. I never claimed macroevolution was the scriptural account of Noah's ark. I clearly used the term microevolution, but you may believe what you will."
Let me put across to you this: You "claim" that all the many species "evolve" after they left the ark: For species to evolve so fast, within the space of 4000 yrs, with only microevolution, are you assuming that this is possible?
When you assume that polar bears, black bears and other bears can evolve from one bear species, I will assume it is macro evolution you are talking about because that kind of change will require a series of changes that should more appropriately be termed "macro", not "micro" evolution.
2."the majority of atheists I meet online and offline are more morally astute than Christians"
I make this statement as a general statement from my observation of Christians, not an absolute statement.
I did not say:"Every Christian is morally bankrupt".
Please do not misinterpret my statements.
3.I have zero tolerance for morons who get themselves killed for their stupidity, and that includes Jesus.
My personal opinion, however, is that the mythical jesus most likely did not exist. Based on scant archaeological records, Jesus was most likely the composite of several messiah-like idiots walking around in the Galilee region.
Lastly, your attempts at proselytizing are, at best, laughable. My Christian background is similar to yours, Splinter, and I would have thought you would have used more creative ways rather than appeal to the "original sin" bullshit.
And finally, if Jesus was the guy I would finally see after I die, I would personally crucify him again, just to make sure he is really dead this time round.
1] I am saying and ascribe that all things with God are possible. I see that Scripture uses the words “sort” and “kind” when referring to the clean and unclean animals to put on the ark. So taking the example of bears, does “kind” mean “the Ursidae (bear) family” or does it mean each individual bear type including, “eight species including the brown bear, the American black bear, the polar bear, the giant panda bear, the Asiatic black bear, the spectacled bear, the sloth bear and the sun bear”? According to this site (here) they would have us believe that the bear came from a type of dog. This is what I consider macroevolution, not the idea of a bear remaining a bear.
2] Your comment, “the majority of atheists I meet online and offline are more morally astute than Christians" is a most broad statement. More morally astute than what Christians? The majority, the minority, the average? Why not say as moral or equally moral? Why – is it because you must always put the atheists above theists, not only in intelligence but now also in morality? Of course you do not see morality through the same eyes as Christianity so by default you will associate the atheist with more or higher morals than that of Christians, but that is most likely do to the idea that there is a difference in moral basis we have. I.E. You would most likely consider an atheist that accepts homosexuality as more moral that a Christian that does not.
3] I guess you could look at my statements as proselytizing, but more to remind you of your knowledge that as all mankind you are a sinner and that inward void toward your need of a Savior Jesus Christ, not really the need to join a Baptist church. I could have appealed to the judgment that all who die in a state of unbelief will go to hell, for you have written in your own blog, “the other part was simply the unwarranted fear of hell, which even today exhibits a kind of lingering fear in me”. You should consider yourself blessed that this fear and knowledge of the things of God still reside in you, even though your outward display of hatred toward God and all that flow from Him, He appears to not have completely given you over to a reprobate mind as of yet.
Again, your concept of macroevolution is flawed.
If a bear species evolves into several bear subspecies over, say a 100,000 years, that is still macroevolution.
1. A microevolution is a singular trait that has changed over a short space of time, eg: Birds evolving with bigger beaks. Macroevolution is the accumulation of several micro changes over a huge span of time.
2. The concept of morality, as I have given you evidence from a historical point of view, has evolved to a point that scriptural morality is not longer acceptable in society. Since the advent of the Renaissance and the Age of Enlightenment, French infidels such as Voltaire and Thomas Paine have sought to wrestle morals back from religion, and to a certain extent, they have succeeded.
What I have attempted to elucidate to you is that, morals should be viewed from a secular humanistic, rather than a dogmatic point of view. But it seems you fail to comprehend this.
3.I do admit that there is a trace of that old "religiosity" left in my subconscious, which remains like poison in my mind. It is similar to the symptoms suffered by children who undergo abuse from a very young age.
Like what Richard Dawkins observes, to teach children about the consequences of hell is child abuse, and that kind of abuse tends to linger around through adulthood.
There is really nothing "blessed" about fear....fear is a reactionary feeling to counteract danger, from a evolutionary point of view. Applied in a dogmatic way, fear becomes an excessive counterforce to free thought.
Post a Comment