Utah judge removes child from lesbian foster parents

[Peter_Plato]

The only way for us to have true freedom of religion is to have a secular government. While I don’t agree with many other religions, I respect their right to worship as they wish… And imposing biblical law or Sharia law, or any other religiously based law would infringe on the rights of those who believe differently.

Every law imposes on the “rights” of those who believe differently. The question is which laws are sufficiently grounded in moral truths such that all human beings because we are moral agents are obligated to obey such laws whether or not we agree with them. Ultimately, it is the moral principles underpinning any law that gives it the justification it needs to be imposed on "those who believe differently. This canard of not imposing “religiously based law” on others is simply misguided. If the “religiously based law” is simply a better moral law and based upon sound ethical thinking then its imposition is one of moral necessity and obligation, whether or not is it “religiously based.”

The problem arises when we seek to wave away all morality and attempt to impose a decidedly amoral system purely because it pretends to be neutral or “secular.” Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking secular morality is superior to all religiously based morality. It isn’t. it is only conducive to creating a fool’s paradise and is inherently confused, as we are quickly discovering –*and will continue to – as this “culture” of license rapidly breaks down any existing social order and renders itself unstable as a result.

We have too many narcissistic and shallow thinkers running institutions of learning, power and culture at the moment – individuals who decide where things should go based upon their own “feelings,” whims and egosim. The common good seems to have vapidly become of no consequence when the immediacy and primacy of “self-love” predominates.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The problem arises when we seek to wave away all morality and attempt to impose a decidedly amoral system purely because it pretends to be neutral or “secular.” Let’s not fool ourselves into thinking secular morality is superior to all religiously based morality. It isn’t.

Firstly don’t fool yourself into thinking that religion is needed for moral or ethical judgments. Secondly don’t fool yourself into thinking that a law prohibiting same-sex relations or adoption has anything to do with morality or ethics. It has everything to do with religious prejudice founded in bronze-age thinking.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Firstly don’t fool yourself into thinking that religion is needed for moral or ethical judgments. Secondly don’t fool yourself into thinking that a law prohibiting same-sex relations or adoption has anything to do with morality or ethics. It has everything to do with religious prejudice.

Both of these claims are rhetorical nonsense since both rely upon a decidedly narcissistic view of ethics and how you define “prejudice.”

What is needed for sound moral and ethical judgements is a sound view of what it means to be human in the first place. Grounding that view on something as precarious as “whatever you want to see yourself as” simply leads to relativistic moral nonsense. And then defining what is “prejudiced” based upon that logic just leads to the kind of nonsense currently being displayed on campuses such as Yale and Missouri.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Both of these claims are rhetorical nonsense since both rely upon a decidedly narcissistic view of ethics and how you define “prejudice.”

What is needed for sound moral and ethical judgements is a sound view of what it means to be human in the first place. Grounding that view on something as precarious as “whatever you want to see yourself as” simply leads to relativistic moral nonsense. And then defining what is “prejudiced” based upon that logic just leads to the kind of nonsense currently being displayed on campuses such as Yale and Missouri.

On the contrary, it is man’s evolving understanding of morals and ethics that allowed some of us to progress beyond the religious claptrap of morally and ethically justifiable stoning of women, mass murder, discrimination, and slavery. A 21st century thinker has no need for religion in moral and ethical decisioning. As Steven Weinberg said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Firstly don’t fool yourself into thinking that religion is needed for moral or ethical judgments.

This needs to be addressed more fully.

What is absolutely required for sound moral and ethical judgements is a sound view of the ends for which human beings ought to strive and, therefore, a sound and defensible view of human nature – of what it means to be “human” in the first place.

Care to provide those without resorting to spouting inane banalities about liberty (the freedom to be whatever you want) and diversity (the requirement to permit others to be what they choose?) Both of which simply undermine every possible ethical system and moral judgement.

 

[St_Francis]

Firstly don’t fool yourself into thinking that religion is needed for moral or ethical judgments.

No, even Aristotle was able to understand natural law.

Secondly don’t fool yourself into thinking that a law prohibiting same-sex relations or adoption has anything to do with morality or ethics. It has everything to do with religious prejudice founded in bronze-age thinking.

Ad hominems don’t make good arguments.

It is quite clear that children do best when raised by their own biological parents. Anything that is not that is a privation to the child. One of the parents may have died; this is a lack the child suffers. It is not a situation we encourage.

In the 1960s and 70s, when what the so-called grown-ups wanted became the all-important consideration, divorce expanded exponentially. Studies similar to those now conducted regarding children in same-sex situations showed that children did fine in divorced households, certainly better than in a household in which the parents were fighting all the time. Rather than considering that the better solution for children with fighting parents was for the parents to grow up and stop fighting, no-fault divorce wended its way across the land.

Then those children grew up and suddenly there was a problem! They didn’t do as well as the children who grew up in households headed by both biological parents! Those early, flawed studies turned out to be wrong.

We are currently in a situation in which people can experiment with raising children in SS households with their own children. It is not right for the state to experiment with other people’s children who are put under state protection.

The lack of both biological parents is a privation for the children. The lack of one is a privation. Eventually we will find that for children in SS households 1. there is the privation of the lack of both parents; and 2. there is the lack of appropriate modeling for relations between the sexes, which is substituted by inappropriate modeling of relations within a sex.

Already we have had children raised in SS households explain the results of their upbringing, but we chose to ignore what they had to say, despite their “coming out” at a heavy price.

We did not see the problems imposed on children by divorce until those children were in their 30s and 40s. Why are we doing the same thing over again with no thought to the lessons we should be learning from our history?

 

[Peter_Plato]

On the contrary, it is man’s evolving understanding of morals and ethics that allowed some of us to progress beyond the religious claptrap of morally and ethically justifiable stoning of women, mass murder, discrimination, and slavery. A 21st century thinker has no need for religion in moral and ethical decisioning. As Steven Weinberg said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Well, you will need to show that what you believe is actually an “evolution” beside resorting to your own prejudicial views about what is necessarily inferred from any and all religious views and what is necessarily to be inferred from atheistic assumptions about reality.

After all, most of the genocides of the last century were due to those power mongers who presumed to themselves the right to be free from “religion” and did what they did as a result of their thinking that no higher authority stood over them.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Well, you will need to show that what you believe is actually an “evolution” beside resorting to your own prejudicial views about what is necessarily inferred from any and all religious views and what is necessarily to be inferred from atheistic assumptions about reality.

After all, most of the genocides of the last century were due to those power mongers who presumed to themselves the right to be free from “religion” and did what they did as a result of their thinking that no higher authority stood over them.

That is a fallacious remark. I could equally point out that religious people do evil things despite their much vaunted religious morals and ethics. No one has claimed that the absence of religion precludes the possibility that immoral and unethical acts will be committed by someone.

 

[Peter_Plato]

That is a fallacious remark. I could equally point out that religious people do evil things despite their much vaunted religious morals and ethics. No one has claimed that the absence of religion precludes the possibility that immoral and unethical acts will be committed by someone.

Ah, but you did claim that "As Steven Weinberg said “… But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

I was merely pointing out that much of the really heinous things of the past century did not “take religion,” but were done by those who rejected all religion.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Ah, but you did claim that "As Steven Weinberg said “… But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

I was merely pointing out that much of the really heinous things of the past century did not “take religion,” but were done by those who rejected all religion.

Then apparently you missed the part about evil people doing evil things. Thats what you get for selective reading.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then apparently you missed the part about evil people doing evil things. Thats what you get for selective reading.

Well, that doesn’t amount to an argument, just a blatant prejudice against every religion.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Well, that doesn’t amount to an argument, just a blatant prejudice against every religion.

It makes the point without going wildly off-topic.

 

[SilverLight]

I don’t know if people are aware that Utah has a very high gay population. I guess this was eventually going to happen.

I agree with the judge. I don’t know if he is acting upon his religious convictions but I would say it is common sense that children should be raised by a mom and a dad.

Obviously there are very loving, caring couples that are gay. But, never in the history of mankind have they raised children. This is a touchy subject for sure.

I’m just saying I had a friend back in grade school who had gay parents. They adopted a few children and seem to still be doing very well. Children can be removed or taken away for multiple reasons in all types of family situations.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Then apparently you missed the part about evil people doing evil things. Thats what you get for selective reading.

No, the problem is that it’s a bunch of nonsense. Here’s the quote- “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Notice how he doesn’t mention anything about why good people do good things, or why evil people do evil things, or evil people doing good things, or any other motivation for good people doing evil things other than religion?

And this isn’t even going into how his foolishness falls apart when confronted with scenarios such as a thief who while robbing a house, finds child porn or witnesses a murder, and reports this to the police. Going with his logic, the thief was doing good by robbing the house, or was doing evil by reporting the child porn or murder.

Do we even want to go into how his comment itself invalidates the idea that religion is somehow the source of evil (without religion evil people do evil things)?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Do we even want to go into how his comment itself invalidates the idea that religion is somehow the source of evil (without religion evil people do evil things)?

I’m not sure what would be accomplished by challenging a claim that was never made. *A *source of evil? Yes. *The *source of evil? No.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m just saying I had a friend back in grade school who had gay parents. They adopted a few children and seem to still be doing very well. Children can be removed or taken away for multiple reasons in all types of family situations.

And I can counter with a student of mine some fifteen or twenty years ago – being raised by two lesbians – who was one of the most messed up 8 year olds I’d ever met before, then or since. The anecdotal stories don’t make the case and neither should we try to generalize off of one or two instances.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I’m not sure what would be accomplished by challenging a claim that was never made. *A *source of evil? Yes. *The *source of evil? No.

The claim is made in the statement itself. " But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

And your response to the rest of my comment?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

The claim is made in the statement itself. " But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

Except that it isn’t. Note that evil people do evil things with or without religion. The claim that religion is *the *source of evil is not made in that statement. It is *a *source of evil.

And your response to the rest of my comment?

Morals and ethics can be determined and either lived by or against without religion.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m not sure what would be accomplished by challenging a claim that was never made. *A *source of evil? Yes. *The *source of evil? No.

Well, now you are backing off of your claim, a la Weinberg, that the ONLY factor for causing good people to do evil things is religion, ergo your claim is that it is the ONLY factor that turns ostensibly good people into evil people and that makes it *The * “ONLY” source of evil in terms of human agents who are not by some “natural” inclination evil, whatever THAT means; as if human agents can just be “evil people” for no reason other than that they are “naturally” evil (or under the inflluence of religion if they are “naturally” good) as Weinberg implies.

Either way, your “argument” is bogus, even if you want to twist it by smarmy rhetoric into a statement of indisputable “fact.”

To wit:

As Steven Weinberg said, “With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Well, now you are backing off of your claim, a la Weinberg, that the ONLY factor for causing good people to do evil things is religion, ergo your claim is that it is the ONLY factor that turns ostensibly good people into evil people and that makes it *The * “ONLY” source of evil in terms of human agents who are not by some “natural” inclination evil, whatever THAT means; as if human agents can just be “evil people” for no reason other than that they are “naturally” evil (or under the inflluence of religion if they are “naturally” good) as Weinberg implies.

Either way, your “argument” is bogus, even if you want to twist it by smarmy rhetoric into a statement of indisputable “fact.”

To wit:

The point continues to sail over your head. First of all, you are attributing a refutation to me that I never made. I refuted the assertion that the statement attributes the source of evil to religion. It does not. It identifies religion as a source of evil that compels otherwise good people to do evil things. Humans can just be evil people for no reason other than they choose to be and/or are inclined to make evil choices. I don’t need a lecture about “bogus” arguments from someone who’s moral decisioning is driven by the babble of a bronze-age boob who claimed that a celestial entity carved the rules of human existence on a mountainside.