A question of semantics...

Collarspace Discussion Forums

Home Login Search

A question of semantics...

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> A question of semantics...

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

A question of semantics... - 11/20/2009 3:25:29 AM

CallaFirestormBW

Posts: 3651
Joined: 6/29/2008
Status: offline

So this morning, in the wee hours, while muddling through my packing (my offspring is getting hitched, and I'm on my way to do the ceremony!), I was thinking about a few things and sorted out a linguistic issue that is the source of my frustration with the setting of "morality" laws.

See... I have NO problem whatsoever with someone saying "I am not allowed to do that -- it is forbidden by my religion/morals/ethics/values/beliefs/etc."

I -do-, however, have a problem with someone saying "YOU are not allowed to do that -- it is forbidden by MY religion/morals/ethics/values/beliefs/etc."

... and -this- is the source of most of my issue with a large portion of legislation in the US. Many of the morality-based laws (including laws regulating marriage, abortion, etc.) are in place to keep ME from doing something because it is morally forbidden by someone ELSE's religious code, and that is just plain -wrong-.

Ok... have at...

_____________________________

***
Said to me recently: "Look, I know you're the "voice of reason"... but dammit, I LIKE being unreasonable!!!!"

"Your mind is more interested in the challenge of becoming than the challenge of doing." Jon Benson, Bodybuilder/Trainer

Profile

Post #: 1

RE: A question of semantics... - 11/20/2009 5:18:12 AM

Moonhead

Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline

Sounds about right.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)

Profile

Post #: 2

RE: A question of semantics... - 11/20/2009 5:59:29 AM

eyesopened

Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline

I do agree with you.

A nation, a group of people, should have laws. Not all those laws will be exactly what every individual wants, believes, or feels is just. But laws should reflect the prevailing morals of the society expected to obey those laws.

I own firearms. I am restricted by law as to where, how, and why I can use my firearms. I feel I personally know best when, how and why I should use my firearms. I do obey the laws. I also know that I have the right to own these guns. As long as my right to own them is not denied, I can deal with the other laws.

See, we are not just a bunch of individuals who happen to occupy space within real or artificial borders. To do away with some laws because some feel they belong to someone else's morals, etc, then are we not also guilty of changing laws based on OUR morals, etc.?? In other words...WHO exactly, is someone else?

Edited because I wanted to expand on this a bit.

I lived in a town that had Sunday "blue" laws. Stores could not be open before 1:00pm on Sundays. I felt I should be able to decide if I want to shop on Sunday morning and I should not have to wait just because some folks felt it would distract people from attending church. The "blue law" issue came up for vote every year. Every year, it won. I could only assume the majority of people wanted this restriction. It was my choice then to move out of that town or organize people to vote against these restrictions.

In the United States, we have Federal laws, State laws, County laws, municiple ordinances and in some cases even community covenants. Supposedly we elect representatives to make laws that reflect the will of the people. We vote on reforendums, elect councilmen/women and frankly if they aren't doing their job, we have the power to fire them. If you hire someone and they refuse to work, who is at fault for not giving them their walking papers?

< Message edited by eyesopened -- 11/20/2009 6:21:37 AM >

_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)

Profile

Post #: 3

RE: A question of semantics... - 11/20/2009 7:48:35 AM

Termyn8or

Posts: 18681
Joined: 11/12/2005
Status: offline

Calla, you've hit the nail right on the head. This propensity pervades every issue, from abortion to gay marriage, from war to peace, literally from life to death.

The purpose of this country lies somewhaere between where we are and total anarchy. Even the Constitution is flawed, as is anything made by Man. This is so deep rooted that any attempt at "attitudectomy" is going to result in a big mess. That is human nature.

This "Judge not lest ye be judged thyself" can mean alot of things, but we all judge. Myself included. The difference is whether or not we have the right to impose our judgement on others. For example there are things people do or talk about doing on these boards that are totally gross to me. But discussing them is not a problem because they are not asking me to do it.

This pervades EVERYTHING. You don't like homosexuality ? YOU have the option not to engage in such activity. Abortion is murder ? YOU have the option not to kill. Want to marry someone of the same gender ? YOU might be the one stuck paying palimony.

Not me.

I think the world would be alot better off if we all just concentrated on our own actions rather than those of others. Live next door to a Gay couple who extoll the virtues of Stalinism ? They have as much right to their beliefs as you to your's. The thing is, their rights end where your's begin. And remember that the reverse is true.

To this day I wonder about my Father. Many times he said "All's fair in love and war" and did reference a fourposter (bed) over the years. I wonder if he played a bit of light kink. He never said, and it is really none of my fucking business.

T

(in reply to CallaFirestormBW)

Profile

Post #: 4