jskains wrote:Religious myths are unreliable and generally irrelevant to rational consideration of policy – law.
But isn't it odd that religion (not everyone finds to be a myth - at least 78% of America doesn't) is told to keep quiet and we can not use religion to create moral law, but then secular movements march right in and make there own versions of Moral law?
JMS
jskains states:
But isn't it odd that religion (not everyone finds to be a myth - at least 78% of America doesn't) is told to keep quiet and we can not use religion to create moral law, but then secular movements march right in and make there own versions of Moral law?
You’re inaccurate here, jskains. We have
freedom of speech in the
US. Who is telling anyone to “keep quiet”? Certainly, no one IS keeping quiet. Every politician campaigning presently is
using religion in some way in his/her campaign. You are not in touch if you believe what you state here.
Now, “moral law” is a phrase you make here. While many regard
law as moral, we know that the law is filled with loop-holes and devices which benefit certain people over others. Do you recall the OJ Simpson trial?
Let me suggest something which may not have occurred to you.
Law and laws are essentially made by the wealthy
for the wealthy. Wealth is transferred
up.
Do I need to provide example?
If a person is buying a car, what person pays MOST for that car? It’s the poorest person. Why? Well, he pays the price AND he pays INTEREST on the amount which he
does not have.
Who pays the least? It’s the person who can and does write a check for the full amount. He pays NO interest.
When someone pays interest (to use a personal example), he pays me. As a member of the board in a bank, I along with other board members receive compensation for loaning the poor man who cannot afford the car which he wants to buy. Wealth is transferred
up.
As a stockholder in various companies, I profit from those who purchase products made by companies in which I am a stockholder. Again, wealth is transferred up.
Let’s pose the question as to whether this is
just. Well, it’s NOT just. But it is the
law. Is it “moral”? That’s open to debate.
As a stock holder in oil, I am delighted to see the price of gasoline rise. While I pay for gasoline, I also make profit on the gasoline that other buy who have
no stock in oil companies.
You have posed a good question. But I doubt you appreciate the ramifications of a notion “moral law.” OJ Simpson had the best
law that money could buy at the time of his trial for the murder of two people.
I think our law would be
more moral if it benefited most those who can least afford to buy essentials. But that is NOT how the law is written nor how it is enforced.
Are you with me? Please ask questions if you have them. If I see them, I’ll try to respond.
Since this is on “Mormon Discussions,” let me relate your notion of “moral” to the LDS.
A
major objective of the Mormon organization is
to transfer wealth to the Mormon church.
By heavy use of fear and guilt, the Mormon organization is very successful in transferring wealth
up from its members to the larger and far more wealthy organization.
Is that “moral”? I don’t think so. But it works. Thanks to tax free status of religious organizations, many churches are currently quite wealthy. At the top of their organizations, they
know how to
shift wealth from individuals to their organization. What is worse (from a moral perspective), there is virtually
no accountability.
Is that “moral”? I doubt it.
Let me give you an oil profit.
Consider Halliburton shown here. If you look at this chart, you can see the profit.
Take a look at
Apple Computer. Had you bought that (perhaps you did) at around $12 a share in 2004 and sold it today at $184, consider your profit. Let’s suppose you bought $10,000 worth of Apple at $12 a share. That would have been around 883 shares. Selling at $184 a share your 883 shares would return to you you $153,333.
The only “work” you would have done was key in on the Internet and purchase your original amount. That’s a very good return on an investment. But who
really made you all than money? It was the people who bought Apple Computers. Apple could have sold those computers for a fraction of what they charged.
If you had done this (this let’s pretend investment), you would have succeeded in
transferring wealth from the less wealthy to yourself (the more wealthy).
You see in
law religion is irrelevant. I understand you wish to make it relevant, but it really is not.
Politicians today are
using religion because
religion sells. The
mega churches are taking in hundreds of millions of dollars through television and actual auditoriums which seat tens of thousands of people. And of course there is always
an offering to God which is taken. People are NOT giving their money to the wealthy business of the religious group – No sir! They are giving their money
to God.
They may be told they are insuring a place in heaven for themselves. Incidentally, no evidence has established
God. But the mega churches do not want people to be THAT informed. If they were, they would not fork over the big bucks. Wealth transfers up.
“Moral” is quite relative, you see. What’s moral for you is not necessarily moral for someone else.
JAK